patternMinor
BFS tree traversal Scala
Viewed 0 times
scalabfstreetraversal
Problem
I would love some feedback on the following code for BFS traversal in a binary tree. Is there a cleaner way to write this?
abstract class Tree[+T]
case class Node[T](value:T,var left:Tree[T],var right:Tree[T]) extends Tree[T]
case object End extends Tree[Nothing]
def bfs_v2[T](node:Node[T]):List[T] = {
def enQueueNext(queue: Queue[Node[T]], aNode: Tree[T]) {
aNode match {
case internalNode: Node[T] => queue += internalNode
case End => {}
}
}
def bfs_visit(queue:Queue[Node[T]],visited:List[T]):List[T] = {
if(queue.isEmpty){
visited
}
else{
val currentNode = queue.dequeue()
enQueueNext(queue, currentNode.left)
enQueueNext(queue,currentNode.right)
bfs_visit(queue,currentNode.value :: visited )
}
}
val aQueue = new mutable.Queue[Node[T]]()
bfs_visit(aQueue += node,List[T]()).reverse
}Solution
As pointed out by @Bob Dalgleish, you mix mutable/immutable. You also mix pattern matching (
You can make very succinct code with Scala. In my example below, the recursive BFS algorithm is basically a single line:
I also put this code for a separate codereview after posting it as an answer.
enQueueNext) with if/else (bfs_visit). You also mix camel case notation (enQueueNext) with underscore notation (bfs_visit).trait would be more appropriate for Tree than abstract class. You don't really need Tree, as I show in my example, but that is debatable. You don't really need a queue either.You can make very succinct code with Scala. In my example below, the recursive BFS algorithm is basically a single line:
bfsLoop(nextLayer.map(_.value) :: accum, nextLayer.flatMap(_.childrenLeftRight)).object TreeTraversal extends App {
case class Node[+T](value: T, left: Option[Node[T]], right: Option[Node[T]]) {
def map[V](f: T => V): Node[V] =
Node(f(value), left.map(l => l.map(f)), right.map(r => r.map(f)))
def childrenLeftRight: List[Node[T]] = List(left, right).flatten
}
def terminalNode[T](value: T) = Node(value, None, None)
def dfs[T](tree: Node[T]): List[T] = {
var output = List[T]()
tree.map(t => (output = t :: output))
output.reverse
}
def bfs[T](tree: Node[T]): List[T] = {
@tailrec
def bfsLoop(accum: List[List[T]], nextLayer: List[Node[T]]): List[T] = nextLayer match {
case Nil => accum.reverse.flatten
case _ => bfsLoop(nextLayer.map(_.value) :: accum, nextLayer.flatMap(_.childrenLeftRight))
}
bfsLoop(List[List[T]](), List(tree))
}
val tree1 = Node[Int](6, Some(Node(13, Some(terminalNode(101)), None)), Some(Node(42, Some(terminalNode(666)), Some(terminalNode(65)))))
println("map: " + tree1.map(i => s"Hello$i"))
println("dfs: " + dfs(tree1))
println("bfs: " + bfs(tree1))
}I also put this code for a separate codereview after posting it as an answer.
Code Snippets
object TreeTraversal extends App {
case class Node[+T](value: T, left: Option[Node[T]], right: Option[Node[T]]) {
def map[V](f: T => V): Node[V] =
Node(f(value), left.map(l => l.map(f)), right.map(r => r.map(f)))
def childrenLeftRight: List[Node[T]] = List(left, right).flatten
}
def terminalNode[T](value: T) = Node(value, None, None)
def dfs[T](tree: Node[T]): List[T] = {
var output = List[T]()
tree.map(t => (output = t :: output))
output.reverse
}
def bfs[T](tree: Node[T]): List[T] = {
@tailrec
def bfsLoop(accum: List[List[T]], nextLayer: List[Node[T]]): List[T] = nextLayer match {
case Nil => accum.reverse.flatten
case _ => bfsLoop(nextLayer.map(_.value) :: accum, nextLayer.flatMap(_.childrenLeftRight))
}
bfsLoop(List[List[T]](), List(tree))
}
val tree1 = Node[Int](6, Some(Node(13, Some(terminalNode(101)), None)), Some(Node(42, Some(terminalNode(666)), Some(terminalNode(65)))))
println("map: " + tree1.map(i => s"Hello$i"))
println("dfs: " + dfs(tree1))
println("bfs: " + bfs(tree1))
}Context
StackExchange Code Review Q#62744, answer score: 5
Revisions (0)
No revisions yet.