binary-search-tree: left() and right() return modifiable subtree
- Langage dominant
- C++
- Étoiles
- 290
- Forks
- 244
- Métriques de merge des PR
- Aucune PR mergée en 30 j
Description
In the exercise "`binary-search-tree`" the methods `left()` and `right()` are hard to implement correctly. The example implementation itself is IMHO incorrect.
The tests look like this:
```cpp
template
using tree_ptr = typename std::unique_ptr>;
template
static void test_leaf(const tree_ptr &tree, const T& data, bool has_left, bool has_right)
//...
test_leaf(tested->left(), 2, false, false);
```
That forces implementations of `binary_tree::left()` (and `binary_tree::right()`) to return a `tree_ptr` reference or rvaue which points to a non-`const` subtree.
Remember: `const std::unique_ptr` means that the `unique_ptr` itself is `const`, not the object it points to.
Somebody could take the example implementation (`example.h`) and write
```cpp
auto tree = binary_tree::binary_tree(100);
tree.insert(50);
tree.left()->insert(150);
```
and thus invalidate the invariant of `tree`.
I consider any implementation of a binary search tree that can be corrupted that way as faulty. I came up with three alternatives that avoid this issue and pass the current tests:
- `binary_tree` could have a member variable `allow_insert` that is `true` for the root and `false` for all subtrees
- `binary_tree` could have a parent pointer and `insert()` could check for each of its parents if the new value violates that parent's invariant
- `left()` and `right()` could copy the subtree and return a `unique_ptr` to that copy.
But IMHO none of those alternatives feels right.
The easiest solution would be if `left()` and `right()` could return `const` raw pointers. But one could argue that raw pointers result in unclear ownership.
Guide de contribution
Aucun guide de contribution indexé pour ce dépôt
Piste de recherche
Commencez par l’exercice de binary-search-tree et examinez example.h, en vous concentrant sur binary_tree::left(), binary_tree::right() et insert(). Comparez leur ownership et leur constness avec les tests actuels présentés dans l’issue. C’est terminé lorsque l’exemple et les tests s’accordent sur une API de sous-arbre const-safe qui ne peut pas invalider l’invariant de l’arbre.
Rédigé par le modèle d'indexation à partir du texte de l'issue.
Évaluation
- Stack technique
- cpp
- Domaine
- backend
- Type d'issue
- Bug
- Difficulté
- 5/5
- Temps estimé
- Plus d'une semaine
- Activité
- À l'abandon
- Clarté
- À clarifier
- Accessibilité débutants
- 25/100