2 ms·

I understand that fine. My problem is the author calls out the “raw value” as distinct from “raw pointer”, implying a non pointer value which would be the cont

by gumby 3y ago

I understand that fine. My problem is the author calls out the “raw value” as distinct from “raw pointer”, implying a non pointer value which would be the content of a tree node. This makes the entire paragraph hard to make sense of.

maattdd 3y ago
We don't care about the content of the node. The interesting part is how do you define the Node itself. struct Node<T> { Node<T> left; Node<T> right; }; would obviously be the best choice (what I call in the article "raw value"). But it's not valid C++.
- gumby 3y ago
  Ah, thanks.