3 ms·
Seems a bit inefficient… I guess we can delete the a node’s copy of x after all of a node’s child nodes are visited, at least.
by bee_rider 2y ago
Seems a bit inefficient…
I guess we can delete the a node’s copy of x after all of a node’s child nodes are visited, at least.
- dmurray 2y agoWell, it doesn't need to be any worse than the stack-based implementation of a recursive tree traversal, and it can't be significantly better. You have to store that state somewhere. Perhaps it can be optimized to be a little better than the recursive version, depending on how much overhead your language uses for a stack frame that it won't need for this special case.