Sign Up to our social questions and Answers Engine to ask questions, answer people’s questions, and connect with other people.
Login to our social questions & Answers Engine to ask questions answer people’s questions & connect with other people.
Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link and will create a new password via email.
Please briefly explain why you feel this question should be reported.
Please briefly explain why you feel this answer should be reported.
Please briefly explain why you feel this user should be reported.
Currently I’m representing a binary tree in the following manner:
[None,2,[None,3,None]]
The tree above is rooted at 2. None means that the branch is empty.
I’d rather implement this in a list.
Are there better ways to do this (without resorting to creating classes) ?
It is possible to represent a binary tree using a flat list, as described here. How wasteful this method is would depend on the shape of your tree.
I am curious as to why you insist on avoiding classes. If you were to wrap this in a class, you could define a clean API and hide the details of your implementation from the eventual user.