[boost] Re: Boost library inclusion: generic tree containers?

From: Thorsten Ottosen (nesotto_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-02-22 09:25:59

"Justin Gottschlich" <jgottschlich_at_[hidden]> wrote in message 
news:200502220833.j1M8XgX2032369_at_milliways.osl.iu.edu...
| 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):
|
|    http://nodeka.com/TreePart1.pdf

The ad hoc implementation of a tree is not exactly "industrial strength" :-)

|    http://nodeka.com/TreePart2.pdf

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.

br

-Thorsten