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

From: Joao Abecasis (jpabecasis_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-02-24 15:02:38

Thorsten Ottosen wrote:
> "Joao Abecasis" <jpabecasis_at_[hidden]> wrote in message 
> news:421E01EA.6020105_at_zmail.pt...
> 
> | From the basic iterators other types of traversal are possible. In my
> |unfinished tree library (see my other post) the same effect would be
> |accomplished with:
> |
> |     inorder_iterator<tree_t::tree_iterator> i = tr.root();
> |     preorder_iterator<tree_t::tree_iterator> i2 = tr.root();
> |
> | This keeps the interface and the implementation of the tree cleaner. One
> | could also use BGL algorithms here if the tree exposes a Graph interface.
> 
> you can still have your clean separation, but I would prefer to expose it
> as typedefs in the tree. That is going to be much more
> pleasent in generic code.

Ok. This seems to be a matter of taste, but I have to ask... Why is a 
typedef more pleasant in generic code then a separate template?

You could have a single algorithm that takes different linearization 
schemes like preorder and postorder as a template parameter and needn't 
  care what their names are.

João