Regarding a query related to References

[skishorev]

I am implementing a binary search tree. But, Here some of the nodes i
need to maintain a backup of .

This backup i am maintaining a Linked Lists.

Example: By using 1 to 100 numkbers i need to construct a binary
search tree.
In this some numbers
1 4 5 7 8 50 (random numbers) to be in one linked
list
2 3 8 9 (random numbers other than linked
list1) to be in second linked list.

At this time , How to i implement the same? How to i give the node
reference to both linked list and binary serach tree?

If you know can you please help me.

[BubbaGump]

On 24 Jul 2006 19:56:54 -0700, sk*******@yahoo.co.in wrote:

I am implementing a binary search tree. But, Here some of the nodes i
need to maintain a backup of .

This backup i am maintaining a Linked Lists.

Example: By using 1 to 100 numkbers i need to construct a binary
search tree.
In this some numbers
1 4 5 7 8 50 (random numbers) to be in one linked
list
2 3 8 9 (random numbers other than linked
list1) to be in second linked list.

At this time , How to i implement the same? How to i give the node
reference to both linked list and binary serach tree?

If you know can you please help me.

typedef struct _Node {
struct _Node *list_back, *list_for;
struct _Node *tree_left, *tree_right;
} Node;
?

[Keith Thompson]

BubbaGump writes:
[...]

typedef struct _Node {
struct _Node *list_back, *list_for;
struct _Node *tree_left, *tree_right;
} Node;

Identifiers starting with an underscore and an uppercase letter are
reserved to the implementation. It's best to avoid declaring any
identifiers starting with an underscore.

If you insist on creating a second name for something that already has
one, there's no need to use two different identifiers:

typedef struct Node {
struct Node *list_back, *list_for;
struct Node *tree_left, *tree_right;
} Node;

Or you can just drop the typedef altogether:

struct Node {
struct Node *list_back, *list_for;
struct Node *tree_left, *tree_right;
};

and refer to the type as "struct Node".

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) ks***@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
San Diego Supercomputer Center <* <http://users.sdsc.edu/~kst>
We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this.

[skishorev]

Can you please explain biefly.

At the time of constructing a binary search tree, shall i take the
references of particular nodes to Linked list1 or to Linked List2.
BubbaGump wrote:

On 24 Jul 2006 19:56:54 -0700, sk*******@yahoo.co.in wrote:

I am implementing a binary search tree. But, Here some of the nodes i
need to maintain a backup of .

This backup i am maintaining a Linked Lists.

Example: By using 1 to 100 numkbers i need to construct a binary
search tree.
In this some numbers
1 4 5 7 8 50 (random numbers) to be in one linked
list
2 3 8 9 (random numbers other than linked
list1) to be in second linked list.

At this time , How to i implement the same? How to i give the node
reference to both linked list and binary serach tree?

If you know can you please help me.

typedef struct _Node {
struct _Node *list_back, *list_for;
struct _Node *tree_left, *tree_right;
} Node;
?

[BubbaGump]

On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 07:59:42 GMT, Keith Thompson <ks***@mib.org>
wrote:

>BubbaGump writes:
[...]

>typedef struct _Node {
struct _Node *list_back, *list_for;
struct _Node *tree_left, *tree_right;
} Node;

Identifiers starting with an underscore and an uppercase letter are
reserved to the implementation. It's best to avoid declaring any
identifiers starting with an underscore.

Really? Damn. You people really know the language details. You know
how many structs I've seen declared like this in both Windows and
Linux.

>If you insist on creating a second name for something that already has
one, there's no need to use two different identifiers:

typedef struct Node {
struct Node *list_back, *list_for;
struct Node *tree_left, *tree_right;
} Node;

The leading underscore is a common convention. Geez. I need to get
out of this f***ing group.

[Keith Thompson]

BubbaGump writes:

On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 07:59:42 GMT, Keith Thompson <ks***@mib.org>
wrote:

>>BubbaGump writes:
[...]

>>typedef struct _Node {
struct _Node *list_back, *list_for;
struct _Node *tree_left, *tree_right;
} Node;

Identifiers starting with an underscore and an uppercase letter are
reserved to the implementation. It's best to avoid declaring any
identifiers starting with an underscore.

Really? Damn. You people really know the language details. You know
how many structs I've seen declared like this in both Windows and
Linux.

Yes really. You're very likely to get away with it most of the time,
but the next version of your implementation is free to define a macro
"_Node" in a standard header, breaking your code.

>>If you insist on creating a second name for something that already has
one, there's no need to use two different identifiers:

typedef struct Node {
struct Node *list_back, *list_for;
struct Node *tree_left, *tree_right;
} Node;

The leading underscore is a common convention. Geez. I need to get
out of this f***ing group.

Not sure what you mean by that.

If you say the leading underscore is a common convention, you may be
right -- but it's a *bad* common convention.

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) ks***@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
San Diego Supercomputer Center <* <http://users.sdsc.edu/~kst>
We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this.

[Ben Pfaff]

BubbaGump writes:

On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 07:59:42 GMT, Keith Thompson <ks***@mib.org>
wrote:

>>BubbaGump writes:
[...]

>>typedef struct _Node {
struct _Node *list_back, *list_for;
struct _Node *tree_left, *tree_right;
} Node;

Identifiers starting with an underscore and an uppercase letter are
reserved to the implementation. It's best to avoid declaring any
identifiers starting with an underscore.

Really? Damn. You people really know the language details. You know
how many structs I've seen declared like this in both Windows and
Linux.

I've seen identifiers _Likethis declared like this in system
header files, but that's because system header files *need* to
use identifiers in the reserved namespace for many purposes.

I'm a little baffled about what's considered part of the
"implementation" under Windows. Perhaps they use those
identifiers where they believe they're writing part of the
implementation.
--
Go not to Usenet for counsel, for they will say both no and yes.