>>>>> Douglas Alan <darkwate...@gmail.com> (DA) wrote:
>DA> I wrote: >>> On Jul 14, 8:10 am, Piet van Oostrum <p...@cs.uu.nl> wrote: >>> >>> > Of course you can take any BST algorithm and replace pointers by indices >>> > in the array and allocate new elements in the array. But then you need >>> > array elements to contain the indices for the children explicitely. >>> And why is this a problem? >DA> Oh, I'm sorry -- I see what you are saying now. You're saying you can >DA> just implement a normal binary search tree, but store the tree nodes >DA> in an array, as if it were a chunk of memory, and use array indices as >DA> pointers, rather than using memory addresses as pointers. >DA> Fair enough, but I'm not sure what that would buy you. Other than, >DA> perhaps some improved locality of reference, and the potential to >DA> perhaps get the pointers take up less space if you know the array is >DA> never going to grow to be very large. My second sentence that you quoted more or less means `it doesn't buy you much'. -- Piet van Oostrum <p...@cs.uu.nl> URL: http://pietvanoostrum.com [PGP 8DAE142BE17999C4] Private email: p...@vanoostrum.org -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
