Re: Binary search tree

I made several changes in the binary search tree implementation. All the
proposed modifications are included with some minor exceptions. One
example is that I don't use the l_* prefix for all locals, e.g. if there
is `i: INTEGER' it is still present and not `l_i: INTEGER'. Name clashes
should not be a problem in this case.
In class DS_BINARY_SEARCH_TREE there is a short `Todo' comment. I know,
that it is against all conventions. It is just there to show, that it is
not finished and not in a stable state.
I did not have enough time so far to modify DS_AVL_TREE and
DS_RED_BLACK_TREE. That is going to be very time consuming to split the
features.

Regards,
Daniel


-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by the 2008 JavaOne(SM) Conference
Don't miss this year's exciting event. There's still time to save $100.
Use priority code J8TL2D2.
http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;198757673;13503038;p?http://java.sun.com/javaone
_______________________________________________
gobo-eiffel-develop mailing list
gobo-eiffel-develop@...
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gobo-eiffel-develop