[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Followup about binary trees
From: |
Paul E. Johnson |
Subject: |
Re: Followup about binary trees |
Date: |
Wed, 02 Dec 1998 12:45:33 -0600 |
"Marcus G. Daniels" wrote:
>
> >>>>> "PJ" == Paul E Johnson <address@hidden> writes:
>
> PJ> Why does a delete function need
> PJ> to know the compare_function? The compare_function has one detail
> PJ> in it that works great when adding nodes but it causes a lot of
> PJ> trouble when it comes time to delete nodes.
>
> To delete a node, it first must be found, and a comparison function
> is needed to do that. Perhaps you could use a second compare function?
>
Yes, I've already got that code working. I just put the function inside
the method where it is called, so it is localized (correct?). That means
I have one compare_nodes in one method, a slightly different one in the
other, all works ok.
But I still don't understand it or your comment. Can you put some more
words down for me? Apparently, a node is considered found when it is
compared against itself, and 0 is returned? What would happen if my
comparison function were written so it never returned 0. Say it returned
1 if >= and -1 if <. According to what one person wrote to me about
trees, that would be acceptable as far as tree-creating is concerned.
But would that mean tdelete would never delete anything?
--
Paul E. Johnson email: address@hidden
Dept. of Political Science http://lark.cc.ukans.edu/~pauljohn
University of Kansas Office: (785) 864-9086
Lawrence, Kansas 66045 FAX: (785) 864-5700
==================================
Swarm-Support is for discussion of the technical details of the day
to day usage of Swarm. For list administration needs (esp.
[un]subscribing), please send a message to <address@hidden>
with "help" in the body of the message.