forsvarir

@overexchange You free the node, not node->item

From the quick glance I have had, it looks like freelist frees the objects in the list for arrays list but doesn't for linked list, which is inconsistent.

I would consider adding getSize as a function of list

@overexchange I would ask another question, I am not sure how much time I will have today and there are a few areas worth looking at.

The list you've written in it's current form is only really directly useful when implementing a stack.

@overexchange Well, you can make 5 calls to insertItem and then there is a method deleteItem, which allows me to specify that I want to delete item3. How do I know what item3 is unless I've maintained a different list somewhere else? There is no methods to read from the list directly getItem(index), or by traversal getEnumerator, getFirst/getNext etc. The only way to retrieve an item from the list is by calling deleteLastItem, which both deletes the last item and returns it.

@overexchange I don't really understand the question. The pastebin above illustrates the approach I am advocating, with the TREE_H guard. Are you asking about the performance impact?

I also don't include files from within my headers (that's a personal approach that isn't standard), so I wouldn't normally encounter the issue.

I would include any includes within my header file guards, however as I've said, I use a single header guard across the whole file.

Do you need to header guard system includes? No. There is a very slight benefit to it when you are including multiple headers (the compiler doesn't have to open the files to determine that they have already been included).

I've never worked with a tree that doesn't have a root.

A single header guard that covers the entire header file, not separate guards for sections of the header.

I'm saying that I'd expect tree.h to look like this: pastebin.com/hd0NFpeZ

@overexchange I'm afraid I don't understand the question.

@overexchange It's strange to have a header guard that only guards system includes which is what you've go in your tree.h. I suspect if your #endif /*TREE_H*/ was on line 39 and you hadn't defined a separate TREE_OP guard, you wouldn't have got that comment.

@overexchange typically, the entire contents of the header is contained in the guard.

@Mast Thanks, my working assumption is that I'm doing roughly the right thing, I'm just not really sure how much context mods have when handling flags.

@Vogel612 the sad thing is, I searched twice before I was sure it was a typo and not me just missing a class name...

@Pimgd thanks 4 hours grace is a lot longer than I was expecting.

Sean seems to have posted an answer (30 mins ago) to a question that says it was closed an hour ago. Anybody ever seen that before? codereview.stackexchange.com/a/136299/4203

I've put an edit into this question to try and make it on-topic. If anybody gets a chance can you take a look and see if it's worth your reopen votes... codereview.stackexchange.com/q/136170/4203

@Mast I'm not sure I understand the question, yes I know there is a comparative review tag. If it's about the string question, then I voted to close because although the OP presented two code options they seemed more interested in interview technique than the relative merits of the approaches.

@pacmaninbw Got dragged away, thanks for making the edit.

@Duga OP added example at my request to illustrate that their code wasn't broken

@Duga Op removed a function in response to a comment (before any answers) I've removed a call to the function in their example code, which they forgot to remove. No answers mentioned the call...

@Duga The op editted in one line before any answers were received, so I fixed the formatting of it (rest of code was already formatted corectly)

@Pimgd This should be pretty close: data.stackexchange.com/codereview/query/514333/…

Could be because of Masts comment 'I've requested an account merge for you. We prefer not to deal with sockpuppets.' Some people just don't like the idea of sockpuppets

@Malachi Fair enough, I've mostly (I think) been clicking no action needed when I've thought the post was close enough that it didn't need edited, but I haven't voted on it. I'll skip in future when I'm not actively taking an action on the post.

@Zak Sometimes I find with developers it's a very fine line between the code and the person. :)

@DanPantry Thanks for taking a look

Can I get a second opinion, is this too ranty?

@syb0rg Should time_list[i][1] == None be time_list[i][1] = None

@syb0rg I think the bigger problem is the question, it's asking about a folder structure, not really about code

@syb0rg @syb0rg fair enough, thanks for taking a look anyway.

@syb0rg You voted to close this question: codereview.stackexchange.com/q/133254/4203 If you have time, could you have a look at my suggested edit to see if you think it would be enough to make it on topic, or is the lack of memory cleanup a deal breaker? codereview.stackexchange.com/review/suggested-edits/59737

I'd also consider adding mi_type to this line puts("Error - Check Me Out!"); so that if it ever happens you know why :)

@syb0rg You look like you're doing if(xxx& MI_QFLAG_TIMESTAMP_INVALID) on a few different time stamps and then printing error or the timestamp, you could extract a method that took the flag value + time value as parameters

@200_success Thanks.

@200_success Did this question really need to be put on hold? codereview.stackexchange.com/q/131644/4203 The op had edited it so that it was asking how to improve the performance of either solution, rather than 'why'. Other than the problem being simpler, I don't see how it's any different to questions like this one: codereview.stackexchange.com/q/128641/4203

@JF I've commented on your markdown change, not sure if you get a notification.

@luweiqi If you're going to add an output quote for that example's simple case, wouldn't it be better to add one for the more complex case as well?

@JonasCz Thanks, can you put the vote back? :)

@JonasCz As far as the answer goes, the bit of the question I was responding to has been edited out. It was more of a critique of the question than an answer, so I'm not sure it really adds value at this point, which is why I deleted it.

@JonasCz If you could remove you're upvote, I would be interested to see the impact, thanks.

Can I get an upvote on this answer please: docs-beta.stackexchange.com/a/908/1576

If it's an area that you're committed to documenting when it becomes available, then preparing your examples in preparation for the public beta (when hopefully you'll get the committers) might be the way to give the area a jump start when it's ready.

@MattClark The issue you're likely to have is that even if you get the tag approved, each change you make will need to be reviewed and approved (I think by two people). The unit-testing proposal got committed to quite quickly (faster than I was expecting), but reviews aren't taking place.

I've approved it, but it looks like you need another approval before it'll go through

I think it all works as expected, I'm just disappointed because I thought I might have found a gaming avenue...