Bottom right view of binary tree in golang
Go program for Bottom right view of binary tree. Here problem description and other solutions.
package main
import "fmt"
/*
Go program for
Print bottom-right view of a binary tree
*/
// Binary Tree Node
type TreeNode struct {
data int
left * TreeNode
right * TreeNode
}
func getTreeNode(data int) * TreeNode {
// return new TreeNode
return &TreeNode {
data,
nil,
nil,
}
}
type BinaryTree struct {
root * TreeNode
}
func getBinaryTree() * BinaryTree {
// return new BinaryTree
return &BinaryTree {
nil,
}
}
// Find bottom right elements
func(this BinaryTree) bottomRightView(node * TreeNode,
distance int, record map[int] int) {
if node != nil {
// Add node of specific distance.
// This is adding a new element or
// update existing value
record[distance] = node.data
// Visit left subtree And
// Here increase the distance by 1
this.bottomRightView(node.left, distance + 1, record)
// Visit to right subtree
this.bottomRightView(node.right, distance, record)
}
}
func(this BinaryTree) printBottomRight() {
// This is store result
var record = make(map[int] int)
this.bottomRightView(this.root, 0, record)
var distance int = 0
for (distance < len(record)) {
// Display bottom right element
fmt.Print(" ", record[distance])
distance += 1
}
}
func main() {
// Create new tree
var tree * BinaryTree = getBinaryTree()
/*
Binary Tree
-----------------------
10
/ \
2 4
/ / \
3 6 5
\
7
/ \
8 11
[⤣⤣⤣⤣]
View position
*/
// Add node
tree.root = getTreeNode(10)
tree.root.left = getTreeNode(2)
tree.root.left.left = getTreeNode(3)
tree.root.right = getTreeNode(4)
tree.root.right.right = getTreeNode(5)
tree.root.right.left = getTreeNode(6)
tree.root.right.left.right = getTreeNode(7)
tree.root.right.left.right.left = getTreeNode(8)
tree.root.right.left.right.right = getTreeNode(11)
// Test
tree.printBottomRight()
}
Output
5 11 8
Please share your knowledge to improve code and content standard. Also submit your doubts, and test case. We improve by your feedback. We will try to resolve your query as soon as possible.
New Comment