Subject: Re: [boost] [gsoc] heaps
From: Raymond Wan (r.wan_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-06-11 11:46:20
On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 23:57, David Abrahams <dave_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> At Fri, 11 Jun 2010 23:07:19 +0900,
> Raymond Wan wrote:
>> That is, maybe a max-heap shouldn't be interchangeable with a priority
>> queue? Â Or, that a heap should have been part of std first...but I
>> presume this project's aim is to correct this omission? Â :-)
> Don't forget, the standard also has heap algorithms that use the same
> default sort criterion.
Oh! Opps...yes, sorry, I did forget about that! Thanks!
Of course, I don't know the reasons why the standard uses the >
operator. Personally, I think we're just talking about things from
two different ends. I'm just saying that the term "heap" doesn't
imply either operator. Out of convenience, books and the C++ standard
made a choice and they happened to have made different choices...but
neither is more correct than the other. Likewise, if a max-heap was
used to follow what std already does, then there is nothing wrong to
explicitly say in the documentation that "by default" a "max-heap is
I was just looking at some std heap documentation (to refresh my
memory :-) ) and it says, "Internally, a heap is a tree where each
node links to values not greater than its own value."  I would say
that this statement is incorrect...but that's just me being picky.
Thank you for correcting me!
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk