On 03/29/2017 06:46 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote: > 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.
I think IN_ORDER really only applies to *binary* trees, not arbitrary trees like a filesystem. Michael
