Subject: [Boost-commit] svn:boost r49555 - sandbox/SOC/2006/tree/trunk
Date: 2008-11-03 10:14:40
Date: 2008-11-03 10:14:39 EST (Mon, 03 Nov 2008)
New Revision: 49555
Text files modified:
sandbox/SOC/2006/tree/trunk/TODO | 17 +++++++++++------
1 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
--- sandbox/SOC/2006/tree/trunk/TODO (original)
+++ sandbox/SOC/2006/tree/trunk/TODO 2008-11-03 10:14:39 EST (Mon, 03 Nov 2008)
@@ -14,12 +14,10 @@
-* Future: Optimise insert_cursor for use with binary_tree insert and copy ctor
- (preorder copy; ideally, we can guarantee RAII for every single element)
- and clear/dtor (postorder for_each).
-* Get insert_cursor to work with postorder copy, then with linear (ascending cursor)
- versions. Check with other algorithms that use output cursors.
-* Caution: Iterative algorithms require ascending cursors!
+* Remove algorithm overloads for root_tracking_cursors, as track_root is a very
+ context dependent thing; so merge it into the general iterative algorithm versions.
+* Get insert_cursor to work with linear (ascending cursor) algorithm
* Move some of the secondary stuff to a util/ dir? Is that what they're used for?
* Redo testing. Right now, it's just chaotic.
* Fix recursive algorithms for use with forest.
@@ -110,6 +108,13 @@
* Start an RFC: what subtree algorithms should there be? In particular, of which of
the STL's linear algorithms should there be a hierarchical version?
+* Do we need cursors that are not iterators, ie that provide to_begin() and to_end
+ (and possibly to_parent()) operations, but not operator++() and --?
+* Optimise insert_cursor for use with binary_tree insert and copy ctor
+ (preorder copy; ideally, we can guarantee RAII for every single element)
+ and clear/dtor (postorder for_each).
Ask on the mailing list:
* (iterator) Can we get rid of the need to declare iterator_core_access a friend (as we're already
Boost-Commit list run by bdawes at acm.org, david.abrahams at rcn.com, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk