Boost logo

Boost :

From: Jeremy Siek (jsiek_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-04-28 21:50:35

--On Sunday, April 28, 2002 12:01 PM -0500 boost-request_at_[hidden]

>> Your description of what you want is what I would consider
>> hierarchical graph structure: graphs can be subgraphs of other
>> graphs. What are the key problems with using BGL's 'subgraph'
>> support?
> Well, for one thing the subgraphs are already created. Some time
> later I need to combine them into the "supergraph." From the
> BGL page, it looks as though the normal mode of operation is to
> create the root graph first and then create subgraphs and add
> vertices and edges to them. Doing this is no less expensive
> than creating a new graph out of the original separate graphs.
> I don't see any interface for taking two graphs and making
> a subgraph tree out of them.

Also, the subgraph class is not a very space-efficient design. The
graph structure of each subgraph is stored explicitly. This is because
the design goal for subgraph was time-efficiency.

>> You may have already done this, but I would suggest
>> examining what you could currently do with subgraphs and edge_lists
>> and such operations such as unions and intersections, and decide if
>> there is some limited addition to these capabilities that would
>> support what you need efficiently. I can guess it would have to
>> do with on-the-fly, efficient union/intersection of
>> graphs/edge_lists/vertices.
> Right.
> -Dave

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at