Re: [boost] Query of Interest in annotated tree extensions to Boost.Intrusive

Subject: Re: [boost] Query of Interest in annotated tree extensions to Boost.Intrusive
From: Vadim Stadnik (vadimstdk_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-01-18 14:27:57

On Sat, Jan 19, 2013 at 3:17 AM, Phil Endecott <
spam_from_boost_dev_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> Hi Jeff,
>
>
> Jeff Snyder wrote:
>
>> I've been working on some extensions to allow users to add annotations to
>> tree data structures (explanation of the idea here:
>> http://je4d.blogspot.co.uk/**2013/01/boostintrusive-**
>> annotated-trees-part-1.html<http://je4d.blogspot.co.uk/2013/01/boostintrusive-annotated-trees-part-1.html>
>> ).
>>
>
> "Augmented trees".
>
> +1
I agree, this and other links in the very first message refer to variants
of augmented data structures.

> There are been several recent proposals of this sort.  I last posted here:
>
>   http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.**comp.lib.boost.devel/236328
>

>
> That has links to the other proposals on this list.
>
>
This is another recent discussion of augmented data structures, mostly
red-black trees:
http://boost.2283326.n4.nabble.com/new-proposal-order-statistics-tree-td4640893.html

>  1. Is there interest in having such functionality in boost?
>>
>
> Yes, but we need to get it right.  In my opinion, we need something that's
> sufficiently generic to cover the about-3 use cases.
>
> I'm unclear why this should be added to Boost.Intrusive, rather than being
> a top-level library in its own right.
>
>
>
Unlike, basic data structures, the augmented data structures can
efficiently support both copy and move semantics.
This is why I also wonder why Boost.Intrusive only?

Regards,
Vadim Stadnik