From: Thorsten Ottosen (nesotto_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-02-22 09:25:59
"Justin Gottschlich" <jgottschlich_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
| Dear Boost library members -
| I'm e-mailing is to ask if there may be interest in a generic tree container
| for addition to Boost.
My guess is that there probably would be such interrest.
| I have written two articles on my tree containers (one published on
| gamedev.net) and the second article in the process for publication on
| gamedev.net that is currently being reviewed. I have posted both articles on
| my site for review (if you're interested in reading them):
The ad hoc implementation of a tree is not exactly "industrial strength" :-)
One major issue with the design: I don't like that iterators are trees. It
must be possible to break the two concepts apart like in
tree<T>::level_iterator i = the_tree.level_begin();
tree<T>::recursive_iterator ii = the_tree.recursive_begin();
I do think it would be good to have several
iteration strategies over the trees:
1. depth first
2. breadth first
3. on one level (ei, no recursion)
For all iterators I would like to be able to say
if( i.is_leaf() ).
Maybe boost.graph can be used instead of starting from scratch, s.t. we can
use a generic
algorithm instead of member functions in the tree.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk