"Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote in message 
news:4b8fdf63$1@news.povray.org...
>I can't find the thread that was talking about trees in Haskell vs trees in 
>an OO language, but...
>
> I realized why I thought trees in an OO language have child nodes with 
> null branches - It's OO. You have pointers to things. In Haskell, it's 
> expected that when you add a new leaf down at the bottom of the tree, the 
> root node changes. In OO, you don't want to have to reassign all variables 
> holding pointers to the root when you add a leaf. And that applies 
> recursively as well. Even balancing a tree, you tend to rotate the child 
> pointers rather than reassign the parent pointer, per se.
>
> So that's at least part of it.

Ah, trees of data...

I'm having a fun time learning to communicate with our new DBA. I look at 
data entirely from an OO point of view; trees of data where a parent object 
owns a collection of child objects (which might or might not be of the same 
type), and I tend to set up my tables so that each class refers to a table. 
Her perspective is different, and I'm learning new things.

The fun just never stops...

--
Jack

Post a reply to this message