Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] [tree] Reviving the tree library
From: Cromwell Enage (sponage_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-05-09 10:25:44


--- On Fri, 5/6/11, Erik Erlandson wrote: > ply() could easily be a free function, and would have > O(depth) complexity.   The problem I saw with depth() > as a stateless function is that its complexity would be > linear on the size of the (sub)tree, unless I'm missing > something.   (I mitigated that problem by maintaining > some depth-histogram structures that can be updated in > O(depth) time for various operations) Interesting. BTW, what's the difference between depth and ply? I thought they were interchangeable (and other users might think so, too). Cromwell D. Enage


Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk