[boost] Re: [review] Formal review of

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