On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 08:52:10 -0400, François Pinard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > [Jorgen Grahn] > >> Neither C++ nor Python has tree structures in their standard >> libraries. I assume that's because there is no single interface that >> is proven to suit everybody's needs. > > It is already easy writing "tree constants" using recursive tuples or > lists. To process simple trees in Python, I usually subclass some > Node type from list, and write the traversal methods that suit the > application. The sub-classing already allow for indexing sub-nodes by > "self[index]", and iterating over all by "for subnode in self:", etc. > In my experience, it all goes pretty easily, while staying simple. > > However, things related to balancing, finding paths between nodes, or > searching for patterns, etc. may require more work. There are surely > a flurry of tree algorithms out there. What are the actual needs you > have, and would want to see covered by a library?
I have no needs, actually ... but yes, the things you mention (balancing, traversal ...) were the ones I was thinking about. /Jorgen -- // Jorgen Grahn <jgrahn@ Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu \X/ algonet.se> R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn! -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list