"Andreas Pokorny" <andreas.pokorny@gmx.de> wrote in message news:20050225185859.GA9589@localhost...
Yeah, but do not forget to reserve time for Jeff Mirwaisis tree library That library is far beyond everything that has been discussed here, and definitely deserves more attention.
Absolutely - I've already started reviewing Jeff's design and am having a side discussion with him regarding his trees (so I can understand what the heck is going on, heheh). If his solution works for the base generic tree solution, then by all means, let's use that. =) We just need to make sure that trees outside of purely algorithmic uses are addressed. With the increasing use of XML, trees simply as storage devices are become more and more popular. It is my believe (which could be completely off) that our basic tree should be generalized in its structure enough to support any kind of tree construction. Lastly, while the internal design of the tree can be as complex as all get out, it is my belief that the client interface should be "extremely" simplistic when using bare-bones functionality (much like a vector is: std::vector<int> v - couldn't be easier than that). This goal of simple use is something I've continually strived towards and part of the reason why I believe much of STL is used so much today - yes it's powerful, but it's also very easy to use. A great example of this is Thorsten's assignment library - it's purpose is solely for simplifying client code. That is a great goal. =) I think we want our generalized tree to be basic enough so novice coders can use it for its basic containment purposes, but powerful enough so advanced coders can stress the heck out of it. Anyways, just random thoughts, =) Justin