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

Subject: Re: [boost] [gsoc] Interest in BGL v2?
From: Andrew Sutton (asutton.list_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-03-31 09:53:02

> My understanding, from talking with Jeremy Siek back in the day (when I had a different competing graph library ;) was that the original graph concepts had been derived by looking at all existing libraries and without any one implementation in mind.

That's right, but the concepts aren't the adaptors, which is how I
read your previous comment.

> To state my question more directly: is compatibility with other graph libraries a goal of the Origin concepts?

I don't think it would be in our interest to exclude the
possibility---I'm not even sure how you would define concepts to do
so. In other words, you should be able to "easily" write an adaptor
for LEDA, SGB, or whatever. We're just not planning to write them.

I will say that our design does take a slightly more object-oriented
approach (g.size(), for example), but that hardly precludes
adaptation. Adaptors would have to be written as classes, but that
shouldn't be a big deal.

> I suppose it needn't be, because it will surely be possible to adapt origin to BGLv1 and that could remain the lingua franca.

That's not going to happen.

Andrew