--- On Tue, 5/10/11, Erik Erlandson wrote:
It looks like this:
cursor inorder_first(); const_cursor inorder_cfirst() const; * Returns: A cursor to the binary_tree's first element in inorder (see [tr.order.iterators], §4).
Perhaps it means "if you were going to traverse this tree in-order, here is the cursor that points to the first node you would visit in that traversal"
That sounds about right.
I'm a little skeptical that such a thing is necessary. If I want in-order traversal, or breadth-first traversal, or any other particular kind of traversal, I'd use an appropriate iterator for that (which might very well be implemented on top of a cursor).
I agree that these methods aren't necessary, but they could make certain traversal initializations more efficient (pre-order comes to mind). The question becomes whether the efficiency is worth the update cost of inorder_first() et al. Cromwell D. Enage