hi Chi,
I didnt mean any disrespect to others. Thought I neednt be too
formal.Anyways sorry for the language.
On Aug 22, 9:57 pm, Chi <c...@linuxdna.com> wrote:
> Hi Giri,
>
> I don't think you can ask for help this way. By stack or recursion can
> mean you are looking for a linear solution, too. Next time you should
> be more precise in your question and I don't think this leet speech
> will help you much. Although some can graps the sound, but it is hard
> to read, and not very respectfull to the others.
>
> That's my opinion.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Chi
>
> On Aug 22, 6:20 pm, Giri <giri.pe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > 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.
