Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.python > #84032
| Date | 2015-01-19 16:19 -0700 |
|---|---|
| From | Michael Torrie <torriem@gmail.com> |
| Subject | Re: Trees |
| References | <mailman.17862.1421705173.18130.python-list@python.org> <54bd8e6a$0$13009$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com> |
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.python |
| Message-ID | <mailman.17866.1421709608.18130.python-list@python.org> (permalink) |
On 01/19/2015 04:08 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote: > Zachary Gilmartin wrote: > >> Why aren't there trees in the python standard library? > > Possibly because they aren't needed? Under what circumstances would you use > a tree instead of a list or a dict or combination of both? > > That's not a rhetorical question. I am genuinely curious, what task do you > have that you think must be solved by a tree? > > Also, what sort of tree? Binary tree? Binary search tree? Red/black tree? > AVL tree? Splay tree? B-tree? T-tree? Scapegoat tree? General n-ary tree? > Every possible type of tree yet invented? Don't forget left-child,right-sibling trees. As I go through your list of trees, I can't find any tree type that cannot be easily and efficiently constructed with lists, possibly with dicts.
Back to comp.lang.python | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Trees Zachary Gilmartin <zacharygilmartin@gmail.com> - 2015-01-19 17:06 -0500
Re: Trees Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2015-01-20 10:08 +1100
Re: Trees Michael Torrie <torriem@gmail.com> - 2015-01-19 16:19 -0700
Re: Trees Devin Jeanpierre <jeanpierreda@gmail.com> - 2015-01-19 15:52 -0800
Re: Trees Tim Chase <python.list@tim.thechases.com> - 2015-01-19 18:00 -0600
Re: Trees Nicholas Cole <nicholas.cole@gmail.com> - 2015-01-20 09:23 +0000
Re: Trees Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-01-20 10:02 -0800
csiph-web