Re: [Boost-users] [BGL] vertex_index_t, edge_index_t?

Subject: Re: [Boost-users] [BGL] vertex_index_t, edge_index_t?
From: Geoff Hilton (geoff.hilton_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-12-08 14:34:13

Geoff Hilton wrote:
> Quick question:
> 
> Given an arbitrary graph of type:
> 
> typedef boost::adjacency_list<
>             boost::listS,                   //out edge list selector
>             boost::vecS,                    //vertex list selector
>             boost::bidirectionalS,          //directedness selector
>             VertexPropertyWrapper_type,
>             EdgePropertyWrapper_type>       Graph_type;
> 
> Where:
> typedef boost::property<
>             boost::vertex_index_t,
>             unsigned long long,
>             MyVertexProperty>             VertexPropertyWrapper_type;
> 
> And:
> typedef boost::property<
>             boost::edge_index_t,
>             unsigned long long,
>             MyEdgeProperty>               EdgePropertyWrapper_type;
> 
> How does setting edge/vertex_index_t as an interior property 
> affect..anything? I saw in a post on this list somewhere a while ago 
> that this was a necessary workaround for something or other (that which 
> I don't recall now).
> 
> In the post it actually said to use "int" (or was it unsigned int?) 
> rather than unsigned long long but in any case I left it as unsigned 
> long long and it hasn't affected anything negatively thus far so I left 
> it that way. I believe I put it at unsigned long long because the type 
> that was suggested for the *_index_t happened to match a weight type 
> used in the post, but whether that was intentionally and implicitly or 
> unintentionally and explicitly I don't remember.
> 
> Thank you,
> Geoff

Just a correction of phrasing to this bit:
I believe I put it at unsigned long long because the type
 > that was suggested for the *_index_t happened to match a weight type
 > used in the post, but whether that was intentionally and implicitly or
 > unintentionally and explicitly I don't remember.

I meant:
"...or unintentionally and unrelated..."

Thanks again,
Geoff