WIP: Get the Tree{T} prune and delete methods working correctly, and also fix fundamentals of the Tree{T} type
#1100
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
dfellis
force-pushed
the
tree-prune-delete
branch
3 times, most recently
from
456867a to
22693a1
Compare
…o I removed the ambiguity that was causing a test to fail
dfellis
force-pushed
the
tree-prune-delete
branch
from
22693a1 to
f953266
Compare
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
I decided to put this PR up to at least have a record of what's blocked forward progress for now.
I haven't had much time lately to work on Alan. I realized a couple of months ago that the
Tree{T}type doesn't work correctly because Alan doesn't have the ability to have references at all. Adding newNode{T}s values would copy the underlyingTree{T}instead of mutating it, which is more threadsafe, but (1) Alan doesn't have threads and (2) is not how people would expect this to work.This PR has some work to add support for defining a shared value, but it still doesn't quite work right.