Talk:Tree datastructures

Attribution

My thanks to Ralf Ebert who asked this question on Stack Overflow which introduced my to the indent form. I answered his question then thought of RC. --Paddy3118 (talk) 08:28, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Good idea for a task – a couple of thoughts.

This seems a promising kind of task – perhaps worth linking to the Functional Coverage Tree task, so that the latter can use outline parsing routines shaped up here.

A couple of thoughts:

1. Perhaps JSON serialisations, both for the nested and numbered data types ?
2. Unicode characters beyond the narrowly Anglo-Saxon alphabet ? Hout (talk) 23:09, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

The simplest nested JSON output (each node a value+list pair) would be:

[["RosettaCode",[
    ["rocks",[
        ["code",[]],
        ["comparison",[]],
        ["wiki",[]]
    ]],
    ["mocks",[
        ["golfing",[]]
    ]]
]]]

Hout (talk) 23:43, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Incidentally, do you feel strongly committed to that particular outline ? For some reason the word 'mock' jars a little (perhaps particularly now that we are beginning to understand more about the destructive potential of digital networks). Hout (talk) 23:43, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Similarly, the simplest JSON output list for integer+value tuples would be:

[[0,"RosettaCode"],
 [1,"rocks"],
 [2,"code"],
 [2,"comparison"],
 [2,"wiki"],
 [1,"mocks"],
 [2,"golfing"]]

Hout (talk) 23:46, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Good Q's. I have a cold (streaming eyes), and will get back to you tomorrow? Thanks. --Paddy3118 (talk) 13:33, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Ginger and turmeric are the thing, with hot water in large quantities. Hout (talk) 13:40, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Appreciated, thanks. --Paddy3118 (talk) 08:24, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

On those questions.

JSON: I didn't want to restrict the task that way, as some could make an equal claim for XML or lisp lists - I thought I'd stay more neutral on that point.

The outline: There should be one, and only one, blah-de-blah :-) Well actually I loved my rocks/mocks pun too much and just slapped in "golfing" as a bad afterthought. I think it is very useful to have the one tree for all language examples, but I stopped mocking golfing years and years ago - its not for RC, but not for mocking IMHO. I have tried for a late save with a note, but is it too late to ask for all examples to update to use just "trolling"?

Your task statement sensibly specifies code that is outline-independent, so any change would, if the code is working, be a quick copy-paste.

(I can speak for 4 of the 7 current entries, all of which I would very happy to change :-)

To be honest, I feel a little embarrassed by any 'mocking' / 'trolling' references – people are dying from it at the moment – I think I would would prefer something perhaps a bit more plausible and motivating - maybe something that gave a sense of the contexts in which one might actually want to work with a tree structure, or something related to the content ? Hout (talk) 08:41, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

And when comparison has children?

--Nigel Galloway (talk) 13:03, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Depends, of course, on the implementation of equality in each language. For JS I have had to hand-write a recursive eq. Haskell's Data.Tree module includes a Tree instance for the Eq class. Python's (==) equality is recursive out of the box. Hout (talk) 13:27, 16 October 2019 (UTC)