XML.orgXML.org
FOCUS AREAS |XML-DEV |XML.org DAILY NEWSLINK |REGISTRY |RESOURCES |ABOUT
OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index]
=?UTF-8?Q?Re=3A_=5Bxml=2Ddev=5D_Representing_binary_trees_in_XML_=E2=80=A6_f?==?UTF-8?Q?lat_versus_recursive?=



On Thu, Jul 4, 2019 at 2:20 PM Costello, Roger L. <costello@mitre.org> wrote:
 

Sorry, I am not clear on what you are suggesting. Do you mean this (recursive) design:


Yes. that's it. You can dispense with binary-tree as well and just use root-node.
 

That doesn’t reduce the number of levels in the tree.


I think it does.  Your design has node as the sole child of left-child and right-child. I am just talking about merging their functions into a single element, one that says it is a node *and* which child it is.  If you knew there would never be any nodes with just one child, you could use just node elements and let ordering do the work (left first, right second), but that limits the applicability.


John Cowan          http://vrici.lojban.org/~cowan        cowan@ccil.org
With techies, I've generally found
If your arguments lose the first round
Make it rhyme, make it scan / Then you generally can
Make the same stupid point seem profound!           --Jonathan Robie



[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index]


News | XML in Industry | Calendar | XML Registry
Marketplace | Resources | MyXML.org | Sponsors | Privacy Statement

Copyright 1993-2007 XML.org. This site is hosted by OASIS