Talk:Depth-limited search
 | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Rewriting of whole arcticle
[edit]Hi, I just rewrote the whole article about Depth-limited search, and therefore used the article in the german Wikipedia as a template. Since I am new to the english Wikipedia, I wanted to ask if there already exist any articles about Space Complexity. Furthermore I wanted to ask if there is something like a glossary with just short definitions of Terms used in Graph Theory like Vertex, Edge, etc? I somehow dislike linking edge, vertex, path, and graph all to the same article... And last but not least: Could someone supply me with information about how much space Depth-Limited search needs on a Graph structure? (On trees its clear, but what about graphs?) Oh, and since my mothertounge is german, I will definitively not mind if someone corrects one or two of the many spelling mistakes *g* Regnaron 14:28, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
>> Ok one correction then : definitely ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.220.252.125 (talk) 10:16, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Problems with 'formal' algorithm
[edit]It is my belief that whomever it was who put the pseudo code together was not an experienced programmer. DFS and its variants (such as this Depth-Limited DFS) are generally implemented using either a stack OR recursive program calls, not both. Using recursive calls is the quickest, easiest way to implement a naive Depth-First algorithm, but the algorithm will then be limited by the program-stack in the environment in which it is executing. To remove recursive calls of this kind from an algorithm, one changes the implementation so that it uses a stack internally and with a loop. IMHO it's truly a coding horror to see both a stack and recursive calls. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.1.117.11 (talk) 23:34, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
And the C# implementation is just as bad - if not worse, as it misses out important details like expanding the node to generate its successors (there's not even a comment in the code indicating its omission). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.1.117.11 (talk) 23:37, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
I agree the stack was confusing since it's not the stack that's commonly referred to so I took it out of the code. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marked (talk • contribs) 03:15, 22 February 2011 (UTC)