Re: [boost] [BGL] MutablePropertyGraph questions

From: Emily Winch (boost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-02-02 11:27:03

On Wed, 2003-01-29 at 15:30, Jeremy Siek wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Jan 2003, Vladimir Prus wrote:
> ghost> I think the best approach would be to make this concept explicit, and
> ghost> independent from BGL. Something like
> ghost>
> ghost>    type_indexed_container<
> ghost>      mpl::list<
> ghost> 	pair<vertex_name_t, int >,
> ghost> 	pair<vertex_distance_t, int> > > c;
> ghost>    c[vertex_name_t()] = 10;
> ghost> 	I wonder if something like this already exists... I vaguely recall
> ghost> someone was doing that.
> 
> Yes, Emily Winch was working on this, and I thought she was going to
> submit to boost. The following URL has a paper she wrote about this.
> 
> http://www.oonumerics.org/tmpw01/schedule.html

I would be very happy to submit it to boost, and several people have
suggested this. I think it would be a mistake to submit it for a formal
review without any prior discussion.

I have mentioned this a couple of times now, and the lack of feedback
led me to think that nobody was particularly interested in it. That's
easy to believe, since when I wrote the paper it was really more from a
"hey, this is cool" perspective than "hey, this would be really useful".

However, people keep asking about it, or suggesting similar ideas, which
suggests that there is some interest.

So, I have a question: Why no feedback?

a) The library is not something that people think makes sense in Boost.
b) The library uses the wrong approach to the problem and someone should
submit something else.
c) The library is not something that anyone would really use. (Hey,
Jeremy. I'm sure you said you would use it).
d) People think it's a great idea but just never got round to having a
look or making any comments.

Emily