Hi Dan! Dan Rosen wrote:
Hi João,
Just wanted to send a brief reply. I think you make some good points about the diversity of possible node designs, and they're reaffirmed by Andreas and David's points as well. I think Andreas has swayed me to explore Jeff Mirwaisi's "feature-oriented" tree ideas some more, and I think your comments are particularly applicable in that context.
Have you had a chance to look at the treelib source and docs that Andreas posted? I'd be grateful for your opinions on that, since I personally have very little experience with that style of programming.
I've downloaded the code but have yet to take an in-depth look. The approach looks interesting, to say the least, and as to the possibilities it seems very powerful. However I don't think we've got to that point of the library design. Well... I haven't, anyway ;-) IMO, wether, in the end, you go for an all-powerful, adaptable, extensible tree that performs optimally for any requirement set and scenario, for many different single-purpose trees, or you pick a mix of both approaches is not really important, right now. Perhaps the most important part of a Boost Tree library will be the set of concepts it endorses. Coming up with a bunch concepts that doesn't limit the implementation possibilities, I think, is the hard part and it is where such a Boost Tree library should begin. Best, João