Cleaner way to handle double pointer in C++ BST?
I have an implementation for my first binary search tree in C++. I was wondering if there was some cleaner way to avoid using the double pointer in the way I have my code setup? Such as on one line I have:
(*node)->left = insert(&((*node)->left),value);
Which seems a bit "messy", but it almost seems necessary for the way I have implemented the BST. Maybe I am possibly missing a way I can change the syntax slightly to achieve the same result? I understand that I can have a double pointer as a parameter for my functions, but I have been told that it is not the standard in C++. I have my code posted below, along with how I am testing it.I am trying to prepare for technical interviews so any feedback is welcome.
#include<stdio.h>
#include<stdlib.h>
#include<iostream>
struct Node
{
int data;
Node *left, *right;
};
// A utility function to create a new BST node
Node* newNode(int data)
{
Node *temp = new Node();
temp->data = data;
temp->left = NULL;
temp->right = NULL;
return temp;
}
// A utility function to do inorder traversal of BST
void inorder(Node **root)
{
if (*root != NULL)
{
inorder(&((*root)->left));
printf("%d n", (*root)->data);
inorder(&((*root)->right));
}
}
/* A utility function to insert a new node with given key in BST */
Node* insert(Node** node, int value)
{
if(*node==NULL){
return newNode(value);
}
if((*node)->data > value){
(*node)->left = insert(&((*node)->left),value);
}
else if((*node)->data < value){
(*node)->right = insert(&((*node)->right),value);
}
return *node;
}
// Driver Program to test above functions
int main()
{
/* Let us create following BST
50
/
30 70
/ /
20 40 60 80 */
Node *root = NULL;
root = insert(&root, 50);
insert(&root, 30);
insert(&root, 20);
insert(&root, 40);
insert(&root, 70);
insert(&root, 60);
insert(&root, 80);
// print inoder traversal of the BST
inorder(&root);
return 0;
}
EDIT:
By changing " ** " in the parameters of the function to "*&" was able to make code much easier to read, with the same functionality.
#include<stdio.h>
#include<stdlib.h>
#include<iostream>
struct Node
{
int data;
Node *left, *right;
};
// A utility function to create a new BST node
Node* newNode(int data)
{
Node *temp = new Node();
temp->data = data;
temp->left = NULL;
temp->right = NULL;
return temp;
}
// A utility function to do inorder traversal of BST
void inorder(Node *&root)
{
if (root != NULL)
{
inorder(((root)->left));
printf("%d n", (root)->data);
inorder(((root)->right));
}
}
/* A utility function to insert a new node with given key in BST */
Node* insert(Node*& node, int value)
{
if(node==NULL){
return newNode(value);
}
if((node)->data > value){
node->left = insert(((node)->left),value);
}
else if((node)->data < value){
(node)->right = insert(((node)->right),value);
}
return node;
}
// Driver Program to test above functions
int main()
{
/* following BST
50
/
30 70
/ /
20 40 60 80 */
Node *root = NULL;
root = insert(root, 50);
insert(root, 30);
insert(root, 20);
insert(root, 40);
insert(root, 70);
insert(root, 60);
insert(root, 80);
// print inoder traversal of the BST
inorder(root);
return 0;
}
c++ algorithm binary-search
New contributor
add a comment |
I have an implementation for my first binary search tree in C++. I was wondering if there was some cleaner way to avoid using the double pointer in the way I have my code setup? Such as on one line I have:
(*node)->left = insert(&((*node)->left),value);
Which seems a bit "messy", but it almost seems necessary for the way I have implemented the BST. Maybe I am possibly missing a way I can change the syntax slightly to achieve the same result? I understand that I can have a double pointer as a parameter for my functions, but I have been told that it is not the standard in C++. I have my code posted below, along with how I am testing it.I am trying to prepare for technical interviews so any feedback is welcome.
#include<stdio.h>
#include<stdlib.h>
#include<iostream>
struct Node
{
int data;
Node *left, *right;
};
// A utility function to create a new BST node
Node* newNode(int data)
{
Node *temp = new Node();
temp->data = data;
temp->left = NULL;
temp->right = NULL;
return temp;
}
// A utility function to do inorder traversal of BST
void inorder(Node **root)
{
if (*root != NULL)
{
inorder(&((*root)->left));
printf("%d n", (*root)->data);
inorder(&((*root)->right));
}
}
/* A utility function to insert a new node with given key in BST */
Node* insert(Node** node, int value)
{
if(*node==NULL){
return newNode(value);
}
if((*node)->data > value){
(*node)->left = insert(&((*node)->left),value);
}
else if((*node)->data < value){
(*node)->right = insert(&((*node)->right),value);
}
return *node;
}
// Driver Program to test above functions
int main()
{
/* Let us create following BST
50
/
30 70
/ /
20 40 60 80 */
Node *root = NULL;
root = insert(&root, 50);
insert(&root, 30);
insert(&root, 20);
insert(&root, 40);
insert(&root, 70);
insert(&root, 60);
insert(&root, 80);
// print inoder traversal of the BST
inorder(&root);
return 0;
}
EDIT:
By changing " ** " in the parameters of the function to "*&" was able to make code much easier to read, with the same functionality.
#include<stdio.h>
#include<stdlib.h>
#include<iostream>
struct Node
{
int data;
Node *left, *right;
};
// A utility function to create a new BST node
Node* newNode(int data)
{
Node *temp = new Node();
temp->data = data;
temp->left = NULL;
temp->right = NULL;
return temp;
}
// A utility function to do inorder traversal of BST
void inorder(Node *&root)
{
if (root != NULL)
{
inorder(((root)->left));
printf("%d n", (root)->data);
inorder(((root)->right));
}
}
/* A utility function to insert a new node with given key in BST */
Node* insert(Node*& node, int value)
{
if(node==NULL){
return newNode(value);
}
if((node)->data > value){
node->left = insert(((node)->left),value);
}
else if((node)->data < value){
(node)->right = insert(((node)->right),value);
}
return node;
}
// Driver Program to test above functions
int main()
{
/* following BST
50
/
30 70
/ /
20 40 60 80 */
Node *root = NULL;
root = insert(root, 50);
insert(root, 30);
insert(root, 20);
insert(root, 40);
insert(root, 70);
insert(root, 60);
insert(root, 80);
// print inoder traversal of the BST
inorder(root);
return 0;
}
c++ algorithm binary-search
New contributor
add a comment |
I have an implementation for my first binary search tree in C++. I was wondering if there was some cleaner way to avoid using the double pointer in the way I have my code setup? Such as on one line I have:
(*node)->left = insert(&((*node)->left),value);
Which seems a bit "messy", but it almost seems necessary for the way I have implemented the BST. Maybe I am possibly missing a way I can change the syntax slightly to achieve the same result? I understand that I can have a double pointer as a parameter for my functions, but I have been told that it is not the standard in C++. I have my code posted below, along with how I am testing it.I am trying to prepare for technical interviews so any feedback is welcome.
#include<stdio.h>
#include<stdlib.h>
#include<iostream>
struct Node
{
int data;
Node *left, *right;
};
// A utility function to create a new BST node
Node* newNode(int data)
{
Node *temp = new Node();
temp->data = data;
temp->left = NULL;
temp->right = NULL;
return temp;
}
// A utility function to do inorder traversal of BST
void inorder(Node **root)
{
if (*root != NULL)
{
inorder(&((*root)->left));
printf("%d n", (*root)->data);
inorder(&((*root)->right));
}
}
/* A utility function to insert a new node with given key in BST */
Node* insert(Node** node, int value)
{
if(*node==NULL){
return newNode(value);
}
if((*node)->data > value){
(*node)->left = insert(&((*node)->left),value);
}
else if((*node)->data < value){
(*node)->right = insert(&((*node)->right),value);
}
return *node;
}
// Driver Program to test above functions
int main()
{
/* Let us create following BST
50
/
30 70
/ /
20 40 60 80 */
Node *root = NULL;
root = insert(&root, 50);
insert(&root, 30);
insert(&root, 20);
insert(&root, 40);
insert(&root, 70);
insert(&root, 60);
insert(&root, 80);
// print inoder traversal of the BST
inorder(&root);
return 0;
}
EDIT:
By changing " ** " in the parameters of the function to "*&" was able to make code much easier to read, with the same functionality.
#include<stdio.h>
#include<stdlib.h>
#include<iostream>
struct Node
{
int data;
Node *left, *right;
};
// A utility function to create a new BST node
Node* newNode(int data)
{
Node *temp = new Node();
temp->data = data;
temp->left = NULL;
temp->right = NULL;
return temp;
}
// A utility function to do inorder traversal of BST
void inorder(Node *&root)
{
if (root != NULL)
{
inorder(((root)->left));
printf("%d n", (root)->data);
inorder(((root)->right));
}
}
/* A utility function to insert a new node with given key in BST */
Node* insert(Node*& node, int value)
{
if(node==NULL){
return newNode(value);
}
if((node)->data > value){
node->left = insert(((node)->left),value);
}
else if((node)->data < value){
(node)->right = insert(((node)->right),value);
}
return node;
}
// Driver Program to test above functions
int main()
{
/* following BST
50
/
30 70
/ /
20 40 60 80 */
Node *root = NULL;
root = insert(root, 50);
insert(root, 30);
insert(root, 20);
insert(root, 40);
insert(root, 70);
insert(root, 60);
insert(root, 80);
// print inoder traversal of the BST
inorder(root);
return 0;
}
c++ algorithm binary-search
New contributor
I have an implementation for my first binary search tree in C++. I was wondering if there was some cleaner way to avoid using the double pointer in the way I have my code setup? Such as on one line I have:
(*node)->left = insert(&((*node)->left),value);
Which seems a bit "messy", but it almost seems necessary for the way I have implemented the BST. Maybe I am possibly missing a way I can change the syntax slightly to achieve the same result? I understand that I can have a double pointer as a parameter for my functions, but I have been told that it is not the standard in C++. I have my code posted below, along with how I am testing it.I am trying to prepare for technical interviews so any feedback is welcome.
#include<stdio.h>
#include<stdlib.h>
#include<iostream>
struct Node
{
int data;
Node *left, *right;
};
// A utility function to create a new BST node
Node* newNode(int data)
{
Node *temp = new Node();
temp->data = data;
temp->left = NULL;
temp->right = NULL;
return temp;
}
// A utility function to do inorder traversal of BST
void inorder(Node **root)
{
if (*root != NULL)
{
inorder(&((*root)->left));
printf("%d n", (*root)->data);
inorder(&((*root)->right));
}
}
/* A utility function to insert a new node with given key in BST */
Node* insert(Node** node, int value)
{
if(*node==NULL){
return newNode(value);
}
if((*node)->data > value){
(*node)->left = insert(&((*node)->left),value);
}
else if((*node)->data < value){
(*node)->right = insert(&((*node)->right),value);
}
return *node;
}
// Driver Program to test above functions
int main()
{
/* Let us create following BST
50
/
30 70
/ /
20 40 60 80 */
Node *root = NULL;
root = insert(&root, 50);
insert(&root, 30);
insert(&root, 20);
insert(&root, 40);
insert(&root, 70);
insert(&root, 60);
insert(&root, 80);
// print inoder traversal of the BST
inorder(&root);
return 0;
}
EDIT:
By changing " ** " in the parameters of the function to "*&" was able to make code much easier to read, with the same functionality.
#include<stdio.h>
#include<stdlib.h>
#include<iostream>
struct Node
{
int data;
Node *left, *right;
};
// A utility function to create a new BST node
Node* newNode(int data)
{
Node *temp = new Node();
temp->data = data;
temp->left = NULL;
temp->right = NULL;
return temp;
}
// A utility function to do inorder traversal of BST
void inorder(Node *&root)
{
if (root != NULL)
{
inorder(((root)->left));
printf("%d n", (root)->data);
inorder(((root)->right));
}
}
/* A utility function to insert a new node with given key in BST */
Node* insert(Node*& node, int value)
{
if(node==NULL){
return newNode(value);
}
if((node)->data > value){
node->left = insert(((node)->left),value);
}
else if((node)->data < value){
(node)->right = insert(((node)->right),value);
}
return node;
}
// Driver Program to test above functions
int main()
{
/* following BST
50
/
30 70
/ /
20 40 60 80 */
Node *root = NULL;
root = insert(root, 50);
insert(root, 30);
insert(root, 20);
insert(root, 40);
insert(root, 70);
insert(root, 60);
insert(root, 80);
// print inoder traversal of the BST
inorder(root);
return 0;
}
c++ algorithm binary-search
c++ algorithm binary-search
New contributor
New contributor
edited 3 hours ago
Pulse
New contributor
asked 4 hours ago
PulsePulse
1184
1184
New contributor
New contributor
add a comment |
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
If you're trying to learn C++, you should get comfortable with constructors and destructors — they're what C++ is all about!
struct Node
{
int data;
Node *left, *right;
};
// A utility function to create a new BST node
Node* newNode(int data)
{
Node *temp = new Node();
temp->data = data;
temp->left = NULL;
temp->right = NULL;
return temp;
}
That's C style. C++ style would be:
struct Node {
int data_;
Node *left_ = nullptr;
Node *right_ = nullptr;
explicit Node(int data) : data_(data) {}
};
Then when you want a new heap-allocated node, you don't call newNode(42)
— you call new Node(42)
! Or, a good habit you should get into: call std::make_unique<Node>(42)
to get back a smart pointer.
Notice that I added sigils to your data members (data_
etc) to distinguish them from non-member variables; and I declared no more than one variable per line to reduce reader confusion.
void inorder(Node *&root)
{
if (root != NULL)
{
inorder(((root)->left));
printf("%d n", (root)->data);
inorder(((root)->right));
}
}
Several things weird here. First, you have a bunch of unnecessary parentheses. (root)
is the same thing as root
. Second, you're passing root
by non-const reference, even though you don't intend to modify it. Third, very minor nit, you're using C-style NULL
instead of nullptr
. Fourth, why do you print a space before the newline? Fixed up:
void inorder(const Node *root)
{
if (root != nullptr) {
inorder(root->left);
printf("%dn", root->data);
inorder(root->right);
}
}
Remember to remove the redundant parentheses in places like insert(((node)->right),value)
. It's much easier to read as insert(node->right, value)
.
Yeah the unnecessary parentheses came from when I was editing from the previous solution. Also, surprisingly was not aware of putting a constructor / destructor into the struct, thanks for pointing that out to me. Much needed feedback.
– Pulse
1 hour ago
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["\$", "\$"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function () {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function () {
StackExchange.snippets.init();
});
});
}, "code-snippets");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "196"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Pulse is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fcodereview.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f211072%2fcleaner-way-to-handle-double-pointer-in-c-bst%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
If you're trying to learn C++, you should get comfortable with constructors and destructors — they're what C++ is all about!
struct Node
{
int data;
Node *left, *right;
};
// A utility function to create a new BST node
Node* newNode(int data)
{
Node *temp = new Node();
temp->data = data;
temp->left = NULL;
temp->right = NULL;
return temp;
}
That's C style. C++ style would be:
struct Node {
int data_;
Node *left_ = nullptr;
Node *right_ = nullptr;
explicit Node(int data) : data_(data) {}
};
Then when you want a new heap-allocated node, you don't call newNode(42)
— you call new Node(42)
! Or, a good habit you should get into: call std::make_unique<Node>(42)
to get back a smart pointer.
Notice that I added sigils to your data members (data_
etc) to distinguish them from non-member variables; and I declared no more than one variable per line to reduce reader confusion.
void inorder(Node *&root)
{
if (root != NULL)
{
inorder(((root)->left));
printf("%d n", (root)->data);
inorder(((root)->right));
}
}
Several things weird here. First, you have a bunch of unnecessary parentheses. (root)
is the same thing as root
. Second, you're passing root
by non-const reference, even though you don't intend to modify it. Third, very minor nit, you're using C-style NULL
instead of nullptr
. Fourth, why do you print a space before the newline? Fixed up:
void inorder(const Node *root)
{
if (root != nullptr) {
inorder(root->left);
printf("%dn", root->data);
inorder(root->right);
}
}
Remember to remove the redundant parentheses in places like insert(((node)->right),value)
. It's much easier to read as insert(node->right, value)
.
Yeah the unnecessary parentheses came from when I was editing from the previous solution. Also, surprisingly was not aware of putting a constructor / destructor into the struct, thanks for pointing that out to me. Much needed feedback.
– Pulse
1 hour ago
add a comment |
If you're trying to learn C++, you should get comfortable with constructors and destructors — they're what C++ is all about!
struct Node
{
int data;
Node *left, *right;
};
// A utility function to create a new BST node
Node* newNode(int data)
{
Node *temp = new Node();
temp->data = data;
temp->left = NULL;
temp->right = NULL;
return temp;
}
That's C style. C++ style would be:
struct Node {
int data_;
Node *left_ = nullptr;
Node *right_ = nullptr;
explicit Node(int data) : data_(data) {}
};
Then when you want a new heap-allocated node, you don't call newNode(42)
— you call new Node(42)
! Or, a good habit you should get into: call std::make_unique<Node>(42)
to get back a smart pointer.
Notice that I added sigils to your data members (data_
etc) to distinguish them from non-member variables; and I declared no more than one variable per line to reduce reader confusion.
void inorder(Node *&root)
{
if (root != NULL)
{
inorder(((root)->left));
printf("%d n", (root)->data);
inorder(((root)->right));
}
}
Several things weird here. First, you have a bunch of unnecessary parentheses. (root)
is the same thing as root
. Second, you're passing root
by non-const reference, even though you don't intend to modify it. Third, very minor nit, you're using C-style NULL
instead of nullptr
. Fourth, why do you print a space before the newline? Fixed up:
void inorder(const Node *root)
{
if (root != nullptr) {
inorder(root->left);
printf("%dn", root->data);
inorder(root->right);
}
}
Remember to remove the redundant parentheses in places like insert(((node)->right),value)
. It's much easier to read as insert(node->right, value)
.
Yeah the unnecessary parentheses came from when I was editing from the previous solution. Also, surprisingly was not aware of putting a constructor / destructor into the struct, thanks for pointing that out to me. Much needed feedback.
– Pulse
1 hour ago
add a comment |
If you're trying to learn C++, you should get comfortable with constructors and destructors — they're what C++ is all about!
struct Node
{
int data;
Node *left, *right;
};
// A utility function to create a new BST node
Node* newNode(int data)
{
Node *temp = new Node();
temp->data = data;
temp->left = NULL;
temp->right = NULL;
return temp;
}
That's C style. C++ style would be:
struct Node {
int data_;
Node *left_ = nullptr;
Node *right_ = nullptr;
explicit Node(int data) : data_(data) {}
};
Then when you want a new heap-allocated node, you don't call newNode(42)
— you call new Node(42)
! Or, a good habit you should get into: call std::make_unique<Node>(42)
to get back a smart pointer.
Notice that I added sigils to your data members (data_
etc) to distinguish them from non-member variables; and I declared no more than one variable per line to reduce reader confusion.
void inorder(Node *&root)
{
if (root != NULL)
{
inorder(((root)->left));
printf("%d n", (root)->data);
inorder(((root)->right));
}
}
Several things weird here. First, you have a bunch of unnecessary parentheses. (root)
is the same thing as root
. Second, you're passing root
by non-const reference, even though you don't intend to modify it. Third, very minor nit, you're using C-style NULL
instead of nullptr
. Fourth, why do you print a space before the newline? Fixed up:
void inorder(const Node *root)
{
if (root != nullptr) {
inorder(root->left);
printf("%dn", root->data);
inorder(root->right);
}
}
Remember to remove the redundant parentheses in places like insert(((node)->right),value)
. It's much easier to read as insert(node->right, value)
.
If you're trying to learn C++, you should get comfortable with constructors and destructors — they're what C++ is all about!
struct Node
{
int data;
Node *left, *right;
};
// A utility function to create a new BST node
Node* newNode(int data)
{
Node *temp = new Node();
temp->data = data;
temp->left = NULL;
temp->right = NULL;
return temp;
}
That's C style. C++ style would be:
struct Node {
int data_;
Node *left_ = nullptr;
Node *right_ = nullptr;
explicit Node(int data) : data_(data) {}
};
Then when you want a new heap-allocated node, you don't call newNode(42)
— you call new Node(42)
! Or, a good habit you should get into: call std::make_unique<Node>(42)
to get back a smart pointer.
Notice that I added sigils to your data members (data_
etc) to distinguish them from non-member variables; and I declared no more than one variable per line to reduce reader confusion.
void inorder(Node *&root)
{
if (root != NULL)
{
inorder(((root)->left));
printf("%d n", (root)->data);
inorder(((root)->right));
}
}
Several things weird here. First, you have a bunch of unnecessary parentheses. (root)
is the same thing as root
. Second, you're passing root
by non-const reference, even though you don't intend to modify it. Third, very minor nit, you're using C-style NULL
instead of nullptr
. Fourth, why do you print a space before the newline? Fixed up:
void inorder(const Node *root)
{
if (root != nullptr) {
inorder(root->left);
printf("%dn", root->data);
inorder(root->right);
}
}
Remember to remove the redundant parentheses in places like insert(((node)->right),value)
. It's much easier to read as insert(node->right, value)
.
answered 2 hours ago
QuuxplusoneQuuxplusone
11.5k11959
11.5k11959
Yeah the unnecessary parentheses came from when I was editing from the previous solution. Also, surprisingly was not aware of putting a constructor / destructor into the struct, thanks for pointing that out to me. Much needed feedback.
– Pulse
1 hour ago
add a comment |
Yeah the unnecessary parentheses came from when I was editing from the previous solution. Also, surprisingly was not aware of putting a constructor / destructor into the struct, thanks for pointing that out to me. Much needed feedback.
– Pulse
1 hour ago
Yeah the unnecessary parentheses came from when I was editing from the previous solution. Also, surprisingly was not aware of putting a constructor / destructor into the struct, thanks for pointing that out to me. Much needed feedback.
– Pulse
1 hour ago
Yeah the unnecessary parentheses came from when I was editing from the previous solution. Also, surprisingly was not aware of putting a constructor / destructor into the struct, thanks for pointing that out to me. Much needed feedback.
– Pulse
1 hour ago
add a comment |
Pulse is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Pulse is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Pulse is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Pulse is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Thanks for contributing an answer to Code Review Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fcodereview.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f211072%2fcleaner-way-to-handle-double-pointer-in-c-bst%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown