The system uses only one stack to implement recursion, so you should be able to do it too :-)
On 3/6/07, NUPUL <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 28, 8:06 pm, "k3xji" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Is there any way of calculating the depth of a binary tree without > > using *recursive way*.Also not using *log2-1* method.I am asking this > > because Is there any way of doing this kind of operation with just > > using stacks or quenes. > > Yes. You can "simulate" recursion by explicitly creating your own > stack and storing the pointers to the traversed nodes OR Create a > threaded (inorder) binary tree, this too eliminates the need of > recursion when traversing the tree in order. > > This solution is offered in a standard book on data structures by > Tanenbaum. > > >In other words, is there a some kind of > > compiler optimization just to avoid recursive call overhead? > > Not an optimization per se but the above avoids the recursion overhead > > >Here is > > the recursive one (pseudo): Any comments?(Also optimization is not > > important here.Is it just possible to implement an algorithm using one > > stack or one quene,like traversal methods do?) > > Which "other" traversal methods are you talking about? The 'graph' > traversal methods are usually specified recursively as they are easier > to read/understand that way. > > Regards, > > Nupul > > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Algorithm Geeks" group. To post to this group, send email to algogeeks@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/algogeeks -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
