From: christopher diggins (cdiggins_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-02-24 23:51:30
----- Original Message -----
From: "Darren Cook" <darren_at_[hidden]>
> From: Christopher DIggins
>> Without that algorithms, etc. are harder to write, and the tree is much
>> harder to manage.
> I've been following this discussion but not the code: I hope a
> high-quality boost tree library would have ways to choose which pointers
> each node maintains; even if that means separate containers for each.
IMO it would be simpler and cleaner to have two separate binary tree
implementation. One which inherently supports traversal, and one which
doesn't. As you point out the trade-off for inherent traversal would be
extra memory usage. As Joao mentioned you can still traverse trees without
built-in traversal using adapters.
So if I understand you correctly then this is an acceptable compromise for a
boost library. Would others be amenable to such a compromise I wonder?
Also I can't help but wonder if preorder / postorder traversal is really
important as part of a tree? I have only ever used inorder, and I have
trouble imagining a scenario where other traversals are important. Anyone
have some use cases for me?
Object Oriented Template Library (OOTL)
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk