|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
"Darren New" <dne### [at] san rr com> 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
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |