Talk:Tree from nesting levels: Difference between revisions

From Rosetta Code
Content added Content deleted
Line 24: Line 24:


:Hmm, it might make that text redundant, but might also cloud the focus, whilst needing other text for ''its'' description. --[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] ([[User talk:Paddy3118|talk]]) 15:50, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
:Hmm, it might make that text redundant, but might also cloud the focus, whilst needing other text for ''its'' description. --[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] ([[User talk:Paddy3118|talk]]) 15:50, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

::It is going to have to change anyway, languages needs an apostrophe. The point is that all will be better understood when the operations for which this data structure are useful is explained.--[[User:Nigel Galloway|Nigel Galloway]] ([[User talk:Nigel Galloway|talk]]) 16:15, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Revision as of 16:16, 2 February 2021

History or provenance of this data-structure ?

Are we sure that this is the most useful representation of 'missing' levels ?

The integers here are carrying a dual load – both as the value of a tree node, and as indicators of nesting depth.

The structure appears to slightly crack under its own weight, losing a bit of recursive coherence and easy traversability, at the point where a nesting level is skipped, and we get nodes with missing values.

Before we jump in with examples in different languages, are you sure that this data-structure has stabilised ? Does it have a history or provenance that you can reference ? Hout (talk)

I expect it to be an exercise. More the maths side than engineering, although someone *did* have the need.
I think it is ripe for first examples; as of writing, the Julia and Phix examples were completed OK, so I think they were able to follow my task description. Are you having problems following the task?
--Paddy3118 (talk) 10:10, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
There's a fault line between the very solid "format that can be used for further calculations"
and the slightly fragile (self-contradictory) should produce:, should generate: lines which
then show a notation that would have no defined meaning in more strictly typed languages.
(but the stakes are not high :-) Hout (talk) 12:43, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

The generated tree datastructure (sic) should ideally be in a languages nested list format that can be used for further calculations rather than something just calculated for printing

Perhaps it would be clearer if the task required further processing. I would suggest at least add an item, delete an item, union of two trees, and subset of a tree according to a predicate.--Nigel Galloway (talk) 15:24, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Hmm, it might make that text redundant, but might also cloud the focus, whilst needing other text for its description. --Paddy3118 (talk) 15:50, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
It is going to have to change anyway, languages needs an apostrophe. The point is that all will be better understood when the operations for which this data structure are useful is explained.--Nigel Galloway (talk) 16:15, 2 February 2021 (UTC)