TL;DR: The most intuitive implementation of BFS is using Queue
Just out of fun, I wonder whether BFS can be implemented without Queue.
While DFS can be easily done by recursion, naive BFS implementation just incurs loop mayhem.
The first solution jumped into my mind is to add a depth parameter into BFS function.
The search function only visits nodes whose depth equals to the parameter and skips nodes whose depth does not.
I am not alone
Generator is sweeping NodeJS community (admittedly this is my exaggeration). I’m quite obsessed with generator’s suspension power. Here’s my try in Python.
implicit BFS, without queue or depth
incurs infinite circulation on loop graph
implement for fun (Really need a queue)
generator function on a node, yield an iterator of frontier nodes
the first call yield an iterator contains the node itself
each subsequent call yields an iterator that is composed of children's gen
try line chains children's yields, and thus accumulates frontier nodes
By recursion, the root node's bfs_gen yields all frontier nodes on the graph
frontier is maintained on callstack, by the suspension feature of generators
yield iter((node.value, ))
# :( still needs a list to maintain generators
children = [bfs_gen(n) for n in node.children]
chain = 0xDEADBABE
while chain != ():
chain = ()
for child in children:
chain = (e for it in (chain, next(child)) for e in it)
def bfs(root, pred):
make generator on root node
call next method to yield frontier nodes
apply predicate function on it, if any matches, return True
else continues to yield more frontier
gens = bfs_gen(root)
while not any(pred(v) for v in next(gens)):
3 4 5 6
from collections import namedtuple
node = namedtuple('Node', ['value', 'children'])
six = node(6, [None])
five = node(5, [None])
four = node(4, [None])
three = node(3, [None])
two = node(2, [five, six])
one = node(1, [three, four])
zero = node(0, [one, two])
# bfs(zero, demo)
for i in bfs_gen(zero):
if __name__ == '__main__':
Wow, much ugly, very obscure. But a old post on certain unsung site gives me an interesting solution.
for node in bfs(root):
for child in node.children:
Tada, done! Let’s peruse this piece of code.
We want a generator that yields a sequence of nodes, this can be done by induction.
- Given the root of a tree, clearly the first node of the sequence is the root
- Because the next level of frontier nodes in the sequence is the children of the current level frontier nodes, construct a new sequence that lags behind.
- yield each child given its parent.
Doing this recursively makes a BFS generator.
The trick part is the second step, for a normal function, this will make infinite loops. But
generator is expanded dynamically, execution jumps out of BFS, eschewing looping condition. Suspension of code also implicitly stores searching states, where calling stacks morph into a Queue. Of course, visited nodes also need to be maintained in a list(not checked here). Termination check is absent, as well.
Interestingly, adapting BFS into DFS only requires swapping two lines, just as substituting stack for queue in classical implementation.
for node in node.children:
for child in dfs(node):
Whatever fun generators have brought, BFS/DFS should probably never done like this. Storing information in stack does not save space. Static language like C/C++ lacks such generator feature. And, notably, function overhead and slow generator in most script language make developers repugnant to such winding trick.