Re: [Algorithms] floodfill

[<mpo...@ed...>]

> > Of course, this method works, but it's a good recipe for stack
> > overflows...
>
> I just don't understand people who code an algorithm with boundless
> recursion. To me, re-doing it "iteratively" with a simple priority queue
or
> list-used-as-stack seems simpler than the recursion, and it often runs
> faster, too (if you have a good allocator).

For me, real recursion (using the stack of the processor) and iterative
versions that use software managed stacks/lists are all recursive by nature.
You will run into the same problems, eventually later with the hand made
version since you do not have the processor stack frame pushed every
call.

Of course one should test for errors, but if you need a "flood fill", your
are not necesserily happy with a "non crashed but only half filled" result.

When I wrote "is a good recipe for stack overflow", I mean it's possible
to use methods that do not waste so much memory (and processor time)
thus giving you a chance to actually perform the requested operation.


    Mickael Pointier