Michael Haggerty <mhag...@alum.mit.edu> writes: > I also realize that I made a goof in my comments about v3 of this patch > series. Your new option is not choosing between "depth-first" and > "breadth-first". Both types of iteration are depth-first. Really it is > choosing between pre-order and post-order traversal. So I think it would > be better to name the option `DIR_ITERATOR_POST_ORDER`. Sorry about that.
That solicits a natural reaction from a bystander. Would an IN_ORDER option also be useful? I am not demanding it to be added to this series, especially if there is no immediate need, but if we foresee that it would also make sense for some other callers, we would at least want to make sure that the code after this addition of POST_ORDER is in a shape that is easy to add such an option later.
