From: Thorsten Ottosen (nesotto_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-10-11 10:33:36
Dave Harris <brangdon <at> cix.compulink.co.uk> writes:
> There is no reason to put a null in the tree. The density of nulls in the
> tree should be zero.
The code needs to be surrounded by a test, equivalent
> to:
>
> if (pDog != 0) {
> pDog->walk_to( pTree );
> assert( pDog->location() == pTree );
> // ... more code assuming the dog's location.
> }
>
> My point is that using null_object does not enable you to avoid the "if"
> statement. And further, having a walk_to() member which is valid for some
> Dog subclasses and not others, is not really an improvement.
I suspect having null is reasonable, but I explicitly requested to see the code.
Otherwise its hard to make a real jugdement.
If there is no null in the tree, then why test for it?
br
Thorsten, the confused