I wonder why the author wouldn't simply write the following code instead of the original one. I tested a lot not to miss a case. So, it works as expected. Is it about time-complexity? What point or nuance did I miss?
Think of the elements as [key,value,left-node,right-node]
// my simplification
def insert_binary_tree(x, T):
if T == []:
T.extend([x[0], x[1], [], []])
else:
if x[0] < T[0]:
insert_binary_tree(x, T[2])
else:
insert_binary_tree(x, T[3])
Original code
def insert_binary_tree(x, T):
if T == []:
T.extend([x[0], x[1], [], []])
else:
if x[0] < T[0]:
if T[2] == []:
T[2] = [x[0], x[1], [], []]
else:
insert_binary_tree(x, T[2])
else:
if T[3] == []:
T[3] = [x[0], x[1], [], []]
else:
insert_binary_tree(x, T[3])
Example run,
t = ['Emma', '2002/08/23',
['Anna', '1999/12/03', [], []],
['Paul', '2000/01/13',
['Lara', '1987/08/23',
['John', '2006/05/08', [], []],
['Luke', '1976/07/31', [], []]],
['Sara', '1995/03/14', [], []]]]
def insert_binary_tree(x, T):
if T == []:
T.extend([x[0], x[1], [], []])
else:
if x[0] < T[0]:
insert_binary_tree(x, T[2])
else:
insert_binary_tree(x, T[3])
print(t)
insert_binary_tree(['Abba', '1111/11/11', [], []], t)
print(t)
CodePudding user response:
The only reason could be greater independence between objects. Compare the two codes by slightly changing the input:
empty = []
t = ['Emma', '2002/08/23',
['Anna', '1999/12/03', empty, empty],
['Paul', '2000/01/13',
['Lara', '1987/08/23',
['John', '2006/05/08', empty, empty],
['Luke', '1976/07/31', empty, empty]],
['Sara', '1995/03/14', empty, empty]]]
Now, the original code will still work, but yours won't. You could still simplify it though while maintaining independent references to empty lists:
def insert_binary_tree(x, T):
if T == []:
T.extend([x[0], x[1], [], []])
else:
child = 2 (x[0] >= T[0])
if T[child]:
insert_binary_tree(x, T[child])
else:
T[child] = x[:2] [[], []]
# again trying to avoid mutable list references