From: Doug Gregor (dgregor_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-06-27 09:56:55
On Jun 23, 2006, at 3:37 PM, me22 wrote:
> On 6/23/06, nicola <vitacolo_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> One design choice in the BGL is that there are "visitor"
>> functions, e.g.
>> breadth_first_search() and depth_first_search(), but there are no
>> "bfs_iterator" or "dfs_iterator". What are the motivations that
>> lead to
>> such choice? Might they be applied to trees as well?
> My guess for that would be that iterators are intended to be cheap to
> copy but duplicating the stacks, queues, or sets of visited/pending
> nodes would be very expensive.
If the iterators stored a shared_ptr to all of the data needed to
make the traversal work, the cost of copying the iterators would be
I think BFS/DFS (and Dijkstra, A*, Prim, topological sort, etc)
iterators would be extremely interesting for the BGL. They better
support incremental uses of these algorithms, and offer an
interesting alternative for simple visitors.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk