Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] [tree] tree cursors and iterators
From: Cromwell Enage (sponage_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-05-10 23:50:21

--- On Tue, 5/10/11, Erik Erlandson wrote: > It looks like this: > > cursor        inorder_first(); > const_cursor  inorder_cfirst() const; >   * Returns: A cursor to the binary_tree's first > element in inorder (see [tr.order.iterators], §4). > > Perhaps it means "if you were going to traverse this tree > in-order, here is the cursor that points to the first node > you would visit in that traversal" That sounds about right. > I'm a little skeptical that such a thing is necessary. > If I want in-order traversal, or breadth-first traversal, > or any other particular kind of traversal, I'd use an > appropriate iterator for that (which might very well be > implemented on top of a cursor). I agree that these methods aren't necessary, but they could make certain traversal initializations more efficient (pre-order comes to mind). The question becomes whether the efficiency is worth the update cost of inorder_first() et al. Cromwell D. Enage

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at