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 10:43:52

>> 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 think you underestimate the cost of adaptation-via-wrapper and urge
> you to stick with free functions unless you have a really good reason
> to do otherwise.

It's a balancing act. Operations that we know are being used in
generic libraries typically are get free functions (out_edges() being
the most important so far). Otherwise, the data structures are
"self-contained". The approach more or less follows the std
containers.

Now that I've said that, I think I need to write vertices(g) and edges(g) :)

Andrew