Re: [9front] New Balanced Search Tree Implementation

[Benjamin Purcell <benjapurcell@gmail.com>]

> a better way would be to provide separate functions, that way if you
> only use bstcreateavl(), you'll only link in the avl code... but you
> can still have your common interface structure.

This is now done and the repos are updated. The venti code also has
been updated.

On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 11:18 AM, Benjamin Purcell
<benjapurcell@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Then why even implement it then when its always slower than avl?
>> you could get rid of the indirection...
>
> 1. In the interest of keeping 9front in the tradition of not only an
> OS we use but also an OS for research and learning, I think it's good
> in its own right to have an implementation of another classic balanced
> tree with interesting invariant properties.
> 2. RB trees are often touted as having better behavior than AVL trees
> and especially in recent years there has been controversy over the
> left leaning variant. Having comparable implementations of the two
> trees together in one OS gives a living example of why AVL and only
> AVL is the one true BST. This is In the same way that keeping acme and
> sam around clearly shows that ED is the one true editor.
>
>> another point about using enum constants to set the algorithm mode
>> has the disadvantage that you always have to link in all the implementations
>> even if you are not using them...
>>
>> a better way would be to provide separate functions, that way if you
>> only use bstcreateavl(), you'll only link in the avl code... but you
>> can still have your common interface structure.
>
> That is a great point and I'll make that change soon.
>
>> --
>> cinap