On Apr 21, 2006, at 12:32 AM, Andy Little wrote:
"Andy Little" wrote
Did you consider a generic tree design? If so why did you reject it in favour of this one?
Just to refresh... The above is the most interesting and yet unanswered question about property tree for me.
As I've lurked in this discussion, this is the question I've had in the back of my mind, too. Some of the most useful (imho) elements of the standard c++ library are collections. We don't spend much time anymore writing associative arrays, variable length arrays, or linked lists. Instead, we have a zoo of containers provided in the library and just populate them with data. I have long wondered why there aren't more attempts to do the same for a tree, something that separates the "tree-ness" of the data structure from the "data-ness" of the data structure similar to the way that std::list and std::map isolate data from structure. Along those lines, I have regularly used an open source implementation of a generic tree structure that I have come to dearly love: the forest class from the Adobe Source Library <http:// opensource.adobe.com/group__forest__related.html>. If it's not terribly overreaching, I humbly suggest that adobe::forest would be a good model for boost to adopt as a generic tree structure. Disclaimer: I am an Adobe employee and a sometimes contributor to the Adobe Source Library. Regards, Eric ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Eric Berdahl No job is too big. Senior Computer Scientist No fee is too big. Adobe Systems Incorporated - Dr. Peter Venkman, "Ghostbusters" berdahl@serendipity.org