From: Rogier van Dalen (rogiervd_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-02-26 16:35:03
On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 02:14:44 -0700, Justin Gottschlich
<jgottschlich_at_[hidden]> wrote:
[...]
> Additionally, I'm going to try to keep the number of template parameters
> down to the lowest number possible while still allowing all the
> functionality we need (template <typename T, typename tree_traits, typename
> allocator>). As far as the generic base tree, I strongly feel that the more
> simple it is, the better.
I'm not sure the number of template parameters should be the bare
minimum; IMO the policies should be orthogonal, a side effect of which
is probably a lot of separate parameters.
Another suggestion: it might be useful for trees to share subtrees
(for example, in an implementation of a SGI-like "rope" class). This
makes possible cheap copies and lower memory use. Subtrees could then
have multiple parents, so that iterators do need a stack.
Regards,
Rogier