Thorsten Ottosen wrote:
"Joao Abecasis" <jpabecasis@zmail.pt> wrote in message news:421E01EA.6020105@zmail.pt...
| From the basic iterators other types of traversal are possible. In my |unfinished tree library (see my other post) the same effect would be |accomplished with: | | inorder_iterator<tree_t::tree_iterator> i = tr.root(); | preorder_iterator<tree_t::tree_iterator> i2 = tr.root(); | | This keeps the interface and the implementation of the tree cleaner. One | could also use BGL algorithms here if the tree exposes a Graph interface.
you can still have your clean separation, but I would prefer to expose it as typedefs in the tree. That is going to be much more pleasent in generic code.
Ok. This seems to be a matter of taste, but I have to ask... Why is a typedef more pleasant in generic code then a separate template? You could have a single algorithm that takes different linearization schemes like preorder and postorder as a template parameter and needn't care what their names are. João