Boost logo

Boost :

From: Eric Berdahl (berdahl_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-04-21 14:36:55

On Apr 21, 2006, at 12:32 AM, Andy Little wrote:

> "Andy Little" wrote
>> Did you consider a generic tree design? If so
>> why did you reject it in favour of this one?
> Just to refresh... The above is the most interesting and yet
> unanswered question
> about property tree for me.

As I've lurked in this discussion, this is the question I've had in
the back of my mind, too.

Some of the most useful (imho) elements of the standard c++ library
are collections. We don't spend much time anymore writing associative
arrays, variable length arrays, or linked lists. Instead, we have a
zoo of containers provided in the library and just populate them with
data. I have long wondered why there aren't more attempts to do the
same for a tree, something that separates the "tree-ness" of the data
structure from the "data-ness" of the data structure similar to the
way that std::list and std::map isolate data from structure.

Along those lines, I have regularly used an open source
implementation of a generic tree structure that I have come to dearly
love: the forest class from the Adobe Source Library <http://>. If it's not
terribly overreaching, I humbly suggest that adobe::forest would be a
good model for boost to adopt as a generic tree structure.

Disclaimer: I am an Adobe employee and a sometimes contributor to the
Adobe Source Library.


Eric Berdahl No job is too big.
Senior Computer Scientist No fee is too big.
Adobe Systems Incorporated - Dr. Peter Venkman, "Ghostbusters"

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at