Paul Rubin wrote: > Stefan Behnel writes: >>> Besides some interface glitches, like returning None >>> on delete if I recall correctly. >> That's actually not /that/ uncommon. Operations that change an object are >> not (side-effect free) functions, so it's just purity if they do not have a >> return value. > > But deletes in an AVL tree should not cause mutation. They should > just allocate a new root and path up to where the deleted node was. > That allows having references to the old and new versions of the tree, > etc.
I doubt that there are many AVL implementations that do that. Plus, if deletion doesn't delete, I'd happily consider that a bug. Stefan -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
