From: Justin Gottschlich (jgottschlich_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-02-25 04:14:44
"Thorsten Ottosen" <nesotto_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
> I'm not sure I like the expression "trees as algorithms". I would like to
> different types of iterators which can then be used to implement
> So I only see trees as containers.
Right-o. At this point, I'm going to take the feedback we've gathered so far
(thank you everyone =) and begin the redesign of the core::tree to the most
simplistic design I can and try to incorporate as many ideas suggested here
that make sense for that basic design. I'll also try to improve the code
quality while removing any unneeded basic functionality that exists in the
tree currently. The suggestions here have been amazing, please keep them
coming. Perhaps as we move forward, we can begin to incorporate more and
more ideas into the general tree framework.
Additionally, I'm going to try to keep the number of template parameters
down to the lowest number possible while still allowing all the
functionality we need (template <typename T, typename tree_traits, typename
allocator>). As far as the generic base tree, I strongly feel that the more
simple it is, the better.
As we all seem to be pointing out, we really need to nail down this generic
base tree structure and its core functionality. Once that's done (and we
agree on how it's done) we can move into the extremely challenging realm of
how to use that structure to achieve all possible trees.
Thanks to all of you for the great feedback, assistance and support, =)
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk