Context: tree (data structure).

"... and some components were 2 or 3 levels nested" (to refer to the second or third level of the tree)

Is the sentence above correct? Otherwise, how should we refer to nested components? Maybe "some components were nested 2 or 3 levels"?

  • 2
    ... And some components were nested 2 or 3 levels deep. – Jim Jan 19 '17 at 22:35
  • Right. The idiomatic lingo is to say that whatever it is is nested 2-3 levels deep. – Hot Licks Jan 19 '17 at 22:40

If my understanding is correct it would be something like:

... and some components were nested two or three levels deep.

Here deep is used as an adverb. That's meaning no 3 for MacMillan.

  • Super great answer – The Beast Jun 2 '17 at 19:00

Nested three levels down:

When program statements are nested three levels down, as in this program, it is hard to see what is controlling what. To figure this out, match "brackets" as was done in a previous chapter.


The nesting is theoretically possible to any ideas of depth, although only a few levels are normally used in practical programs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nested_function

Google results:

programming + nested 2 levels deep = About 983 results (0.62 seconds)

programming + nested 2 level down = About 71 results (0.62 seconds)

Deep is more common, it would seem. Down is also used.


It should be "nested two or three levels."


The version presented does not sound so wrong, because of its similarity to the usage of possession with other nouns:

How do you show possession with the word "year" ("year's" vs."years")?

A "levels' nesting" would be a novel usage, for sure. But, it would still not work with the rest of the sentence fragment in your example. (Because "component" is the subject of the sentence, rather than "level")

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.