Timeline for Disjoint set implementation as linked list
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
9 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 23, 2017 at 12:40 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://stackoverflow.com/ with https://stackoverflow.com/
|
|
| Sep 26, 2016 at 20:31 | history | edited | 200_success |
edited tags
|
|
| Sep 26, 2016 at 20:26 | history | edited | Jamal |
edited tags
|
|
| Jan 25, 2012 at 15:45 | vote | accept | Patryk | ||
| Jan 19, 2012 at 3:09 | answer | added | Paul Martel | timeline score: 6 | |
| Jan 18, 2012 at 11:35 | answer | added | CashCow | timeline score: 2 | |
| Jan 18, 2012 at 2:57 | comment | added | Patryk | @PaulMartel I want to continue using them. This will be just a part of bigger function so I do not know if wrapping it up in a class is worth it but on the other hand I will have a memory leak anyway. Can you suggest a way how this can be implemented ? (code snippet) | |
| Jan 18, 2012 at 2:25 | comment | added | Paul Martel | Your code does not show any nodes being deleted. Assuming that you do not want to leak them all like this, do you intend to delete them and then continue to have calls to find and union operate correctly on remaining nodes, or do you only need to delete all the nodes after the last call to find or union? | |
| Jan 17, 2012 at 22:48 | history | asked | Patryk | CC BY-SA 3.0 |