On Thu, Feb 26, 2004 at 03:13:11PM -0500, Brian McNamara wrote:
On Thu, Feb 26, 2004 at 02:39:40PM +0200, Peter Dimov wrote:
and obvious question #2 is why I should copy the tree into a list at all, when I could've just flattened it into a sequence with iterators. To be fair, you do point that out yourself.
Good point; I was just keeping the example simple.
(In fact, when you use fcpp::lists with lazy evaluation, lists effectively become input iterators. It would be interesting to implement inorder-iterators for this tree both with and without FC++. Hmm. How easy/hard would it be to build bidirectional iterators for a tree like this? I've never tried. If you have the time to cook some up (using Boost), I would enjoy seeing them, and comparing them to whatever I could cook up with FC++.)
Hmm, I wrote a reply to this, but never saw it and fear it is lost forever in the ether. The summary was - the Tree data structure I wrote is not amenable to bidirectional iterators (no uplinks) - it is reasonable to write forward iterators instead - you can implement forward iterators "by hand", or you can use a variation of fold_tree, FC++ lists, and lazy evaluation to get iterators with the same behavior (maybe with less code) -- -Brian McNamara (lorgon@cc.gatech.edu)