From: Doug Gregor (dgregor_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-10-30 09:23:38
On Oct 25, 2006, at 9:15 PM, Shams wrote:
> How far can we use the Boost.BGL as a generic tree container.
> * I mean why SoC Boost.Tree when BGL is around?
> * If BLG has limitations then couldn't that be extended/prettified
> of the Soc Tree container?
> * Can someone please clarify/rationalize the differences/similarities?
It may be possible to extend the BGL, but trees are a more restricted
domain than graphs, with different terminology. A user of a tree
library wants to "add_child" whereas a user of a graph library wants
to "add_edge"; forcing the user to use improper terminology is more
likely to force them to implement their own data structure. Also, one
can probably optimize storage/traversal/etc. for a tree better than
for a generalized graph data structure.
That said, I'd like to see tree and graph libraries made
interoperable, so that BGL algorithms can work on generic trees.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, david.abrahams at rcn.com, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk