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

Subject: Re: [boost] [gsoc] Interest in BGL v2?
From: Gordon Woodhull (gordon_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-03-31 18:03:44

On Mar 31, 2011, at 3:45 PM, Andrew Sutton wrote:

>>> It's a balancing act. Operations that we know are being used in
>>> generic libraries typically are get free functions
>> 
>> IMO it should be: "operations that are used in generic algorithms get
>> free functions."
> 
> Oops. That is exactly what I was trying to write, but apparently
> failed in several ways.

It sounds to me like you are going to end up keeping the BGLv1 functional graph concepts for compatibility, and also providing STL-style OO concepts (I prefer this aesthetic too).  I'll strive to be compatible with both, if possible.

I don't see how the old graph concepts are confining in any way, if anything they are sometimes too loose, e.g. when a node object is self-sufficient and you don't need the graph to lookup its edges.  Not that I'm complaining; I understand why they are this way.

On Mar 31, 2011, at 9:21 AM, Andrew Sutton <asutton.list_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> The BGL concept hierarchy didn't address graph mutability very well.
> There aren't a lot of algorithms in the library that require a lot of
> add/remove functions, so it's not terribly surprising. I would also
> have liked to see more semantic concepts: directed and undirected
> graphs, weighted graphs, simple graphs, multigraphs. All of these
> concepts show up as requirements in various places in the library, but
> aren't expressed conceptually.

+1 on all this - I'll be watching with rapt attention, and following your lead.

Thanks,
Gordon