From: Doug Gregor (dgregor_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-10-30 09:23:38
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