Re: [boost] [gsoc] Interest in BGL v2?

Subject: Re: [boost] [gsoc] Interest in BGL v2?
From: Andrew Sutton (asutton.list_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-03-29 08:49:46

> I think the original intent of algorithm objects for BGL is inversion of
> control flow: instead of something like BFS calling visitor methods at event
> points, you have a BFS object that suspends itself where it would have
> called the visitor, and then is continued by surrounding code.  This makes
> it easier to do things like interleave two BFS runs at the same time, which
> you can't do with the existing model (without threads or coroutines).

Is there a reference to that description? The algorithm objects in the
BGL seem to be giant function objects.

I think our major use case was to use these objects as an alternative
method to calling functions with large numbers of input and output
parameters. The idea was to create an algorithm object over its
required or optional associated data and then call it using a limited
number of inputs (a graph, a vertex, etc.). After termination, the
associated data is also available through the object.

We've also written BFS (and soon DFS) as Range models, which offer a
limited form of inversion. This approach also supports interleaving 2
BF traversals. I haven't actually tried it out.

Earlier designs of these classes had more control points, we weren't
entirely sure what the use cases were, so we simplified them. It
wouldn't be hard to bring previous designs back.

One concern with this approach is that adds overhead to the of the
algorithm. I didn't want to force users to use a slower algorithm when
there wasn't need. Also, they're a lot harder to write, and it's not
always straightforward to recall

Andrew