On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 02:14:44 -0700, Justin Gottschlich <jgottschlich@runbox.com> wrote: [...]
Additionally, I'm going to try to keep the number of template parameters down to the lowest number possible while still allowing all the functionality we need (template <typename T, typename tree_traits, typename allocator>). As far as the generic base tree, I strongly feel that the more simple it is, the better.
I'm not sure the number of template parameters should be the bare minimum; IMO the policies should be orthogonal, a side effect of which is probably a lot of separate parameters. Another suggestion: it might be useful for trees to share subtrees (for example, in an implementation of a SGI-like "rope" class). This makes possible cheap copies and lower memory use. Subtrees could then have multiple parents, so that iterators do need a stack. Regards, Rogier