[Boost-commit] svn:boost r46423 - in sandbox/SOC/2006/tree/trunk: . boost/tree/detail/algorithm/cursor libs/tree/test

From: ockham_at_[hidden]
Date: 2008-06-16 09:42:54

Author: bernhard.reiter
Date: 2008-06-16 09:42:53 EDT (Mon, 16 Jun 2008)
New Revision: 46423
URL: http://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/changeset/46423

Log:
Minor fixes.
Text files modified: 
   sandbox/SOC/2006/tree/trunk/TODO                                           |     5 +++++                                   
   sandbox/SOC/2006/tree/trunk/boost/tree/detail/algorithm/cursor/general.hpp |     5 ++---                                   
   sandbox/SOC/2006/tree/trunk/libs/tree/test/binary_tree_test.cpp            |     1 +                                       
   3 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

Modified: sandbox/SOC/2006/tree/trunk/TODO
==============================================================================
--- sandbox/SOC/2006/tree/trunk/TODO	(original)
+++ sandbox/SOC/2006/tree/trunk/TODO	2008-06-16 09:42:53 EDT (Mon, 16 Jun 2008)
@@ -14,6 +14,11 @@
 [section TODO]
 
 General:
+* Is it really a good idea to use InCursor::size_type for size(Cursor)?
+  For a binary_cursor, a boolean size_type would be enough - but
+  not for a subtree algorithm like this one. Maybe we need two different size_types for
+  cursor - a "children" one for iterator compatibility and a "subtree" one for
+  "larger scale".
 * Use the example trees form Knuth as test example data.
 * Write (internal/external?) adaptors for other tree libraries, as Kaspar Peeters' or
   Adobe's.

Modified: sandbox/SOC/2006/tree/trunk/boost/tree/detail/algorithm/cursor/general.hpp
==============================================================================
--- sandbox/SOC/2006/tree/trunk/boost/tree/detail/algorithm/cursor/general.hpp	(original)
+++ sandbox/SOC/2006/tree/trunk/boost/tree/detail/algorithm/cursor/general.hpp	2008-06-16 09:42:53 EDT (Mon, 16 Jun 2008)
@@ -18,6 +18,8 @@
 namespace boost {
 namespace tree {
 
+// These algorithms are actually mostly preorder, as it's most efficient, but I
+// think it doesn't make much sense having in- and postorder versions of them. 
 
 // What about the subtree shapes?
 /**
@@ -49,9 +51,6 @@
 }
 
 
-// Is it really a good idea to use InCursor::size_type?
-// For a binary_cursor, a boolean size_type would be enough - but
-// not for a subtree algorithm like this one.
 /**
  *  @brief		Calculates the number of elements in a subtree.
  *  @param c	An input cursor.

Modified: sandbox/SOC/2006/tree/trunk/libs/tree/test/binary_tree_test.cpp
==============================================================================
--- sandbox/SOC/2006/tree/trunk/libs/tree/test/binary_tree_test.cpp	(original)
+++ sandbox/SOC/2006/tree/trunk/libs/tree/test/binary_tree_test.cpp	2008-06-16 09:42:53 EDT (Mon, 16 Jun 2008)
@@ -166,6 +166,7 @@
         // Fill empty tree2 with different data
         create_test_data_tree(tree2);
         validate_test_data_tree(tree2);
+	BOOST_CHECK(tree1 != tree2);
         
         // Swap
         test_swap_binary_trees(tree1, tree2);