
Boost : 
From: LieQuan Lee (llee1_at_[hidden])
Date: 20010503 10:41:41
At Thu, 3 May 2001 12:36:08 +0200,
Artur Wisz wrote:
>
> Hello again,
> I have a practical problem and try to solve it with BGL. Some topological
> algorithms for calculating symbolic determinants of an admittance matrix
> (Electrical Circuits) require a vertices merge operation, that is vertex u
> is merged with vertex v to become vertex v. It consists of these steps:
>  remove (u,v) and (v,u) edges;
>  merge all u and v outedges with common targets;
>  merge all u and v inedges with common sources;
>  move the rest of u outedges to v;
>  move the rest of u inedges to v;
> Merging edges means merging their properties (mainly names and weights) and
> can be done with a user supplied functor.
> Moving an edge means creating a new edge and copying the edge properties to
> the new edge properties.
This is a contraction operation (to contract vertex u into vertex
v). You might already know that sometimes the contraction algorithm to
describe the solution to the problem could be implemented quite
differently. For example, people optimize contraction in minimum
degree algorithm in very different way.
One possible way is to rebuild the outedges/inedges, not just modify
them. Namely, copy original edges of v to new ones and mark them. Then
when you deal with edges of u, you know whether an edge is already
existing in edges og v or not. You can use a predicate to copy_if all
edges of u's. Anyway, sorting edges to find common targets/sources
might not be a good idea here.
> Finding outedges/inedges with common targets/sources can be done with
> set_intersection with predicate, provided that the edges are sorted. This
> should be true with associative containers, but not the others, like lists
> or vectors. So here is the first problem: in the graph interface currently
> there is no way to sort edges/outedges/inedges of a graph. The workaround
> is to make a copy of those sets, sort them and then find the intersections.
> This has its time and space overhead.
>
> Another problem is accessing all edge properties at once, i.e. for copying
> them. Now properties can be accessed only in one dimension, and the property
> has to be explicitly specified. There is no generic way of manipulating all
> element properties as a whole, while adhering to the concept that a property
> can be anything, although there are already types edge_property_type and
> vertex_property_type in the MutablePropertyGraph concept. Therefore a user
> has to supply a function object for doing things like copying properties of
> one element to another, which is a pretty generic operation. Perhaps the
> MutablePropertyGraph concept could be extended somehow to allow such
> manipulations.
> What do you think ?
> Thanks,
>
 LieQuan Lee University of Notre Dame
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk