From: Dan Rosen (dan.rosen_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-03-30 01:58:50
Just wanted to send a brief reply. I think you make some good points
about the diversity of possible node designs, and they're reaffirmed
by Andreas and David's points as well. I think Andreas has swayed me
to explore Jeff Mirwaisi's "feature-oriented" tree ideas some more,
and I think your comments are particularly applicable in that context.
Have you had a chance to look at the treelib source and docs that
Andreas posted? I'd be grateful for your opinions on that, since I
personally have very little experience with that style of programming.
On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 10:20:27 +0100, Joao Abecasis <jpabecasis_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> I also like the idea of interchangeable node types and from here to
> defining and exposing the concept it's only a short walk. For example,
> where space constraints are important a node could have two pointers:
> * next sibling
> * first child
> Where one will be constantly going up and down the tree, back and forth
> between siblings, the gains from keeping the extra previous sibling and
> parent are important.
> In the end, there are many possible node designs, and I can't say that
> one size fits all (or which, for that matter), so I planned to implement
> a few that I might want and let the advanced user write his own.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk