Talk:Depth-limited search

Rewriting of whole arcticle
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
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)