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

Subject: Re: [boost] [gsoc] Interest in BGL v2?
From: Dave Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-03-29 09:49:50

At Mon, 28 Mar 2011 18:45:26 -0500,
Andrew Sutton wrote:
> 
> The argument comes from a usability perspective. If I want to use a
> data structure, I expect it to work a certain way---to have a specific
> interface with guaranteed behaviors. Generative data structures like
> the adjacency list don't fit that model. All of the generated
> implementations may be AdjacencyLists, but they're all refinements in
> one way or another. One side effect of this is conditional document
> dependent on the choice of selector arguments.
> 
> Basically, it's a metaprogram masquerading as a data structure, which
> I perceive as not great. I'm sure there are plenty of people who will
> disagree.

I was never very fond of generative programming (despite the iterator
library), so not I.

> >> Another feature that has been on BGL's want list is the
> >> implementation of algorithm objects.
> >
> > For example?
> 
> Just a class that wraps the algorithm. There are several in the BGL.
> The technique offers a little more flexibility when the number of
> parameters is large.

Sure; it's easier to carry state across function calls.

-- 
Dave Abrahams
BoostPro Computing
http://www.boostpro.com