Trouble Modifying Calling Pointer in Recursion - c++

Question

So I'm working on a BST, building the delete tools.
My code sequence seems to work right - Save not updating the parent or root and setting the pointer that sent it down to the deleted Node's address to NULL.
I'm passing a pointer to a pointer in my Erase and RemoveNode functions, so as to directly effect the left, right, or root data members that actually lead to the recursive call. In walking through the code, it sets *N to NULL in the remove function, but this is not reflected in the data of the calling object. Am I incorrect in using the pointer-of-a-pointer method? If so, is there a way I can recursively delete and be able to modify the prior node if the link is destroyed?
Node struct:
struct tNode
{
tNode(int n)
{
data = n;
left = NULL;
right = NULL;
}
//Works, cleans all linked objects.
//Must remember to null links when removing wanted nodes
~tNode(void)
{
//cout << "Deleting " << data << endl;
delete left;
delete right;
}
// Data members
int data;
tNode* left;
tNode* right;
};
Eraser function to recurse over the tree:
void BinSearchTree::Erase(int n, tNode** N)
{
tNode* node = *N;
if (root)
{
if (node->data > n) // post order, to avoid moving many times over
{
if (node->left)
{
Erase(n, &node->left);
}
}
else
{
if (node->right)
{
Erase(n, &node->right);
}
}
if (node->data == n)
{
RemoveNode(&node);
}
}
}
And the RemoveNode function to handle actual deletion:
void BinSearchTree::RemoveNode(tNode** N)
{
tNode* node = *N;
if (!node->left && !node->right) // is leaf
{
delete node; // remove node
size--;
*N = NULL; // null pointer for above node/structure
}
else if (!node->left) // right child
{
tNode* temp = node->right; // to strip out copied node when finished
node->data = node->right->data; // copy right node into current node
node->right = node->right->right;
node->left = node->right->left;
temp->right = NULL; // NULL because node destructor is recursive
temp->left = NULL; // ^^
delete temp;
size--;
}
else if (!node->right) // left child
{
tNode* temp = node->left; // to strip out copied node when finished
node->data = node->left->data; // copy left node into current node
node->right = node->left->right;
node->left = node->left->left;
temp->right = NULL; // NULL because node destructor is recursive
temp->left = NULL; // ^^
delete temp;
size--;
}
else // 2 children
{
tNode* temp = node->right; // find ideal child -> left-most right child
tNode* parent = NULL; // keep track of owner of ideal child
while (temp->left)
{
parent = temp;
temp = temp->left;
}
node->data = temp->data; // copy ideal child to root
if (parent)
{
parent->left = temp->right; // case that left-most child has right child of it's own
}
RemoveNode(&temp);
size--;
}
}

Answer 1

I think I see it. When you call RemoveNode() from Erase(), you pass it the value &node. Pass in N instead.
Here's what's happening: The line tNode* node = *N; creates a local variable on the stack. A copy of *N. And while that variable has the same value as *N (at first), it's stored in a different place in memory: node is on the stack, and *N is somewhere in the heap.
So, since you pass &node to RemoveNode(), node is what gets changed. Not *N - it's somewhere else. But if you pass in, you're changing what you want to.
Hope that helps!
PS: If that's not clear, let me know! Writing about double-pointers might just be harder than using them...

Answer 2

Save yourself the trouble of using double pointers and just use a reference to pointer. They have the same semantic of normal pointers, but assigning them will actually change the passed pointer.
void BinSearchTree::Erase(int item, tNode*& node);
Also, use expressive names and save the single letter variable names for loops.