by stacks i meant the usage of extra space.. recursion stack is
handled by the OS.. so it doesnt bother.. ok
On Aug 22, 1:08 pm, "R.ARAVINDH" <aravindhr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> @manohar and @giri::
>
> doesn recursion itself use stacks( implicitly)??
>
> On Aug 18, 9:26 pm, Giri <giri.pe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > @manohar: thnks man.. this solution would be apt..
>
> > if there's any better algo which doesn't use an extra stack or queue,
> > but does the purpose in recursion, do post it..
>
> > On Aug 18, 8:01 am, Manjunath Manohar <manjunath.n...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > Tree *node
> > > for(i=1;i<=height;i++)
> > > {
> > > levelorder(node,i);}
>
> > > void levelorder(Tree *node,int level)
> > > {
> > > if(level==1)
> > > printf(node->value);
> > > else
> > > levelorder(node->left,level-1)
> > > levelorder(node->right,level-1);
>
> > > }
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Algorithm Geeks" group.
To post to this group, send email to algoge...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
algogeeks+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/algogeeks?hl=en.
