On Oct 25, 2006, at 9:15 PM, Shams wrote:
Hi,
How far can we use the Boost.BGL as a generic tree container. * I mean why SoC Boost.Tree when BGL is around? * If BLG has limitations then couldn't that be extended/prettified instead of the Soc Tree container? * Can someone please clarify/rationalize the differences/similarities?
It may be possible to extend the BGL, but trees are a more restricted domain than graphs, with different terminology. A user of a tree library wants to "add_child" whereas a user of a graph library wants to "add_edge"; forcing the user to use improper terminology is more likely to force them to implement their own data structure. Also, one can probably optimize storage/traversal/etc. for a tree better than for a generalized graph data structure. That said, I'd like to see tree and graph libraries made interoperable, so that BGL algorithms can work on generic trees. Doug