Date: 2001-01-07 00:11:24
Funny this topic should come up -- I was just thinking of posting a
suggestion that rb-trees be made a part of boost, until I realized
that the functionality I needed I could get from the standard set.
Still, it would be more natural to work with an interface to the tree
itself, since what I wanted was a data structure which efficiently
supported the following operations on a container of elements with a
(I wanted to implement a 'priority deque', which is a double-ended
priority queue. These are very useful in search algorithms where you
want to bound the number of active hypotheses by tossing the least
David Abrahams has provided a compelling reason for providing
mechanisms for accessing internal tree structure.
But I don't understand why it's inappropriate to use something like
the interfaces underlying standard set implementations. David?
As for the hash table issue -- I think it would be a good idea to
provide some hash implementations. They can be very useful. Perhaps
boost could provide a variety of them.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk