Newsgroups: comp.lang.prolog
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!oitnews.harvard.edu!purdue!lerc.nasa.gov!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!math.ohio-state.edu!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!news.sprintlink.net!uunet!in1.uu.net!portal.austin.ibm.com!bocanews.bocaraton.ibm.com!watnews.watson.ibm.com!eclipse!usenet
From: paulward@torolab.vnet.ibm.com (paulward)
Subject: Re: breadth-first vs depth-first...
Sender: usenet@eclipse.torolab.ibm.com (eclipse sysadm)
Message-ID: <PAULWARD.95Jun13090641@skyhawk.torolab.vnet.ibm.com>
In-Reply-To: stevew@debretts.comp.vuw.ac.nz's message of 11 Jun 1995 11:34:32 GMT
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 1995 13:06:41 GMT
Lines: 12
References: <STEVEW.95Jun11233432@debretts.comp.vuw.ac.nz>
Organization: IBM Toronto Lab

>>>>> "Stephen" == Stephen Wray <stevew@debretts.comp.vuw.ac.nz> writes:

Stephen> 1. is there any really really good reason why an option for prolog
Stephen>   to go BFS rather than DFS would be a Bad Thing?

O(b^d) space is required for BFS, where DFS requires O(d) where d is
the solution depth and b the branching factor.
-- 
-- Paul (paulward@vnet.ibm.com)   | A barbarian that requires a justification
DB2/PE Development.               | will use the nearest appealing one.  Blame
Shouldn't there be a shorter word | the barbarian, not his justification for
for the concept "monosyllabic".   | his acts.
