unsubscribe

From: widi (zelephoeck_at_[hidden])
Date: 2000-09-20 00:07:27

----- Original Message -----
From: jeremy siek <jsiek_at_[hidden]>
To: <boost_at_[hidden]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2000 1:27 AM
Subject: Re: [boost] Graph stuff

> David Abrahams writes:
> > Isn't it really there to make up for lack of template template
parameters?
> > If so, I would hesitate to use the same convention for weight, which
will
> > never be a TTP.
>
> Right, they are used to replace TTPs.
>
>  > property<int, edge_weight> // nobody puts weights on nodes anyway
>  >    property<int, edge_color> // I realize there are some orthogonality
>  > issues here...
>  >    property<int, node_color> // ...but it may actually make the
declaration
>  > of the graph a lot clearer
>  >
>  > Any of these things strike your fancy or set off a spark?
>
> This last suggestion strikes my fancy. Something that has been bugging
> me is that it is hard to tell by looking at an adjacency_list typedef
> whether a plugin was being used for a vertex or edge plugin.  Having
> "edge" or "vertex" in the name certainly makes this stand out.
>
>   typedef adjacency_list<
>     mapS, vecS, bidirectionalS,
>     property<default_color_type, vertex_color,
>           property<int, vertex_in_degree> >,
>     property<int, edge_weight>
>   > Graph;
>
> The orthogonality issue is not a big deal. They are just empty structs
> anyways, so having duplicates like edge_color and vertex_color is ok
> (though in this case, nobody uses edge_color).
>
> Cheers,
>
> jeremy
>
>
>
>