Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.python > #45161
| References | (3 earlier) <518850f8$0$8157$862e30e2@ngroups.net> <mailman.1393.1367889616.3114.python-list@python.org> <518ade0f$1$60230$862e30e2@ngroups.net> <mailman.1473.1368063609.3114.python-list@python.org> <518baa27$0$7930$862e30e2@ngroups.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-05-11 16:24 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Red Black Tree implementation? |
| From | Dan Stromberg <drsalists@gmail.com> |
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.python |
| Message-ID | <mailman.1571.1368314691.3114.python-list@python.org> (permalink) |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] - view raw
I'm afraid I'm having some trouble with the module. I've checked it into my SVN at http://stromberg.dnsalias.org/svn/red-black-tree-mod/trunk/duncan I have two versions of your tests in there now - "t" is minimally changed, and test-red_black_tree_mod is pretty restructured to facilitate adding more tests later. I get the same problem with either version of the tests. The problem I'm seeing is that the tree, when built from items, isn't looking quite right. I inserted a print(tree) into the for loop, and I'm getting the following, where I expected the tree to grow by one element on each iteration: $ python t 6 False None None 6 False 3 None 6 False 3 15 6 False 3 15 6 False 3 11 6 False 3 11 6 False 3 11 11 False 6 15 11 False 6 15 11 False 6 15 11 False 6 15 11 False 6 15 11 False 6 15 11 False 6 15 11 False 6 15 11 False 6 15 11 False 6 15 11 False 6 15 11 False 6 15 11 False 6 15 Thoughts? BTW, printing an empty tree seems to say "sentinel". 'not sure if that was intended. Thanks! On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 6:52 AM, duncan smith <buzzard@invalid.invalid>wrote: > On 09/05/13 02:40, Dan Stromberg wrote: > >> OK, I've got one copy of trees.py with md5 >> 211f80c0fe7fb9cb42feb9645b4b3f**fe. You seem to be saying I should have >> two though, but I don't know that I do... >> >> > [snip] > > Yes, 211f80c0fe7fb9cb42feb9645b4b3f**fe is the correct checksum for the > latest version. The previous version had an issue when adding non-distinct > items (items that compare equal to items already in the tree). Cheers. > > Duncan > > -- > http://mail.python.org/**mailman/listinfo/python-list<http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list> >
Back to comp.lang.python | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Red Black Tree implementation? Dan Stromberg <drsalists@gmail.com> - 2013-05-01 16:11 -0700
Re: Red Black Tree implementation? duncan smith <buzzard@invalid.invalid> - 2013-05-02 03:06 +0100
Re: Red Black Tree implementation? Dan Stromberg <drsalists@gmail.com> - 2013-05-02 19:00 -0700
Re: Red Black Tree implementation? duncan smith <buzzard@invalid.invalid> - 2013-05-07 01:55 +0100
Re: Red Black Tree implementation? Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-05-07 11:21 +1000
Re: Red Black Tree implementation? Dan Stromberg <drsalists@gmail.com> - 2013-05-06 18:20 -0700
Re: Red Black Tree implementation? duncan smith <buzzard@invalid.invalid> - 2013-05-07 14:28 +0100
Re: Red Black Tree implementation? duncan smith <buzzard@invalid.invalid> - 2013-05-09 00:21 +0100
Re: Red Black Tree implementation? Dan Stromberg <drsalists@gmail.com> - 2013-05-08 18:40 -0700
Re: Red Black Tree implementation? duncan smith <buzzard@invalid.invalid> - 2013-05-09 05:31 +0100
Re: Red Black Tree implementation? duncan smith <buzzard@invalid.invalid> - 2013-05-09 14:52 +0100
Re: Red Black Tree implementation? Dan Stromberg <drsalists@gmail.com> - 2013-05-11 16:24 -0700
Re: Red Black Tree implementation? duncan smith <buzzard@invalid.invalid> - 2013-05-12 02:34 +0100
Re: Red Black Tree implementation? Dan Stromberg <drsalists@gmail.com> - 2013-05-11 18:29 -0700
Re: Red Black Tree implementation? duncan smith <buzzard@invalid.invalid> - 2013-05-12 03:02 +0100
Re: Red Black Tree implementation? duncan smith <buzzard@invalid.invalid> - 2013-05-12 19:15 +0100
csiph-web