From: Jason Hise (chaos_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-02-22 22:17:25
Justin Gottschlich wrote:
>After quickly looking through Kasper's design, I see the fundamental
>difference between my tree and Kasper's is that Kasper attempts to cover all
>possible tree iterations by definition of all possible types of iterators.
>My tree implements an iterator that functions as a tree and therefore
>naturally covers all possible types of iterations - given any node within
>the tree, you can iterate however you like (in, out, ++, --) from that node.
I haven't looked at the code, so please correct me if I am off base.
But isn't having iterators which behave like stl iterators the only way
to make the tree work with generic algorithms? I think that your
multi-purpose iterator could be very convenient for the code that is
hardwired to use trees, but I think that it would also be nice if the
other iterators were provided, so that you could for_each over a single
level in the tree, or over the whole tree, etc...
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk