On Dec 14, 4:12 pm, Michal Suchanek <hramr... / centrum.cz> wrote:
> On 14/12/2007, Eric I. <rubytrain... / gmail.com> wrote:
> >   def height
> >     (Math.log(@contents.size + 1) / Math.log(2)).round
> >   end
>
> Now I think this one is misleading. Here you choose to lie about the
> tree height. There is no way one can detect this by a test, a list
> passes for a binary tree at any time. It is just somewhat unbalanced -
> the real height is @contents.length

I think that's a valid criticism.  It was a failed attempt to make it
work using the simplest change.  I feel like I need to let someone
else fix it, though.

Eric