[slashnhax]

I'm the opposite, I wouldn't mind the idea but I'm definitely leaning in favour of restriction. In my opinion if you're going to have a branch with a null sub-node, that branch should be replaced by a leaf.

I think I get what you're saying, but there are cases where you can't replace that branch with a leaf easily and elegantly

 

[party]

I think I get what you're saying, but there are cases where you can't replace that branch with a leaf easily and elegantly

Can you think of one? Rather than the condition being returned in validate() it would just be an if statement within execute().

 

[savior]

I'm the opposite, I wouldn't mind the idea but I'm definitely leaning in favour of restriction. In my opinion if you're going to have a branch with a null sub-node, that branch should be replaced by a leaf.

Thats like saying if you have a leaf in a tree (by definition a node without children), this leaf needs two leafs as children. It doesnt make sense to me
 

Can you think of one? Rather than the condition being returned in validate() it would just be an if statement within execute().

Gl with that if the subtree is fairly complex

 

[party]

Thats like saying if you have a leaf in a tree (by definition a node without children), this leaf needs two leafs as children. It doesnt make sense to me
 

Gl with that if the subtree is fairly complex

That's not what it's like saying at all.
 
I mean don't get me wrong I'm not against the idea, I just haven't come across a use case.

 

[savior]

That's not what it's like saying at all.

Yes it is, you are saying that null children should be replaced with leafs. Well leafs are defined by having no/null children.

 

[party]

Yes it is, you are saying that null children should be replaced with leafs. Well leafs are defined by having no/null children.

No, I'm saying if you have a branch with one child, the branch and child should be consolidated into a leaf node.