Subject: [boost] [tree] more questions (was: [tree] associative containers)
From: Cromwell Enage (sponage_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-11-03 14:05:21
From: Erik Erlandson
> I'm not entirely sure about the relative merits of that versus defining
> a parallel zoology of Hierarchical Containers that is basically
> isomorphic to the traditional Container hierarchy, and leaving the
> cursor definition more lightweight: perhaps just "iterator plus
> parent(), begin() and end()", or alternatively not having a separate
> cursor type, and simply having traditional iterators over children at
> any given node.
I'm curious as to what tree algorithms can take better advantage of the cursor interface as-is. Also:
* What are the primary differences between a plain hierarchy and a multiway hierarchy?
* Why shouldn't one assume that an on-top cursor is dereferenceable?
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