Re: [boost] [tree] Reviving the tree library

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