Writing an Algorithm to Check Depth of Leaves in an Ordered Tree

[evinda]

I'm not sure what you mean...

I meant that that what we found isn't the actual depth, but the actual depth+1..
Or am I wrong? (Thinking)

 

[I like Serena]

I meant that that what we found isn't the actual depth, but the actual depth+1..
Or am I wrong? (Thinking)

That's why we always need to consider if anything should be plus or minus 1! (Rofl)

 

[evinda]

That's why we always need to consider if anything should be plus or minus 1! (Rofl)

(Bigsmile) (Wasntme) (Whew)

So, do we have to change something? (Thinking)

 

[I like Serena]

(Bigsmile) (Wasntme) (Whew)

So, do we have to change something? (Thinking)

What is it that you think might need to be changed? (Wondering)

 

[evinda]

What is it that you think might need to be changed? (Wondering)

Do we have to increment the depth, maybe, only when the child of the node we are looking at is not NULL? (Thinking)

 

[I like Serena]

Do we have to increment the depth, maybe, only when the child of the node we are looking at is not NULL? (Thinking)

It seems to me that makes the algorithm unnecessarily complicated.
Better would be to initialize depth to -1 instead of 0. (Thinking)

Note that if we execute the algorithm on a non-existent (NULL) tree, it should work consistently, meaning it should find a depth of -1. (Nerd)