From: Phil Endecott (spam_from_boost_dev_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-08-08 16:42:06
I have had a look at the Time Series docs and it looks like a
worthwhile library, though I have not done anything recently with
time-indexed data that could use it.
I have, however, had to deal with sparse vs. dense data structure
decisions with other index types, e.g. integers; this leads me to
wonder what ties this library specifically to _time_ series.
One of the elements of this library is a pair of containers that have a
common interface but store their contents either in a dense or a sparse
structure. I wonder whether it would be worth generalising those
containers to make them applicable to non-time applications - and to
make them as close to standard library containers as possible. One way
to approach this would be to think about how a std::map-like interface
can be presented to a std::vector, and/or how a std::vector-like
interface can be presented to a std::map. My motivation is that I
sometimes find myself with code like this:
typedef std::map<int,T> T_container; // I'm not sure yet if this is
best stored in a sparse
T_container tt; // (map) or dense (vector)
structure, but by making
// it a typedef I can easily
change it later.
Of course, when I change the typedef from map<int,T> to vector<T> I
discover that there are plenty of other places where I have to change
the code; for example I have to add or remove '->second' wherever I
dereference an iterator. How about:
dense_map<int,T> : provides the interface of std::map<int,T> (or a
subset of it), implemented using a vector. Needs to grow the vector
when something is inserted.
sparse_vector<T> : provides the interface of std::vector<T> (or a
subset of it), implemented using a map. Needs an iterator that can
point to gaps between the map elements.
How close do the sparse and dense time series containers come to this?
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk