You are absolutely correct. For some reason I forgot your original
intent and concentrated on your recent comments re RB trees only being
internal in the libraries you checked.
On 7/30/07, Sébastien Lorion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Not really ... C5 has yet another RB tree implementation, for b
On 7/27/07, Barry Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > In the case where the relationships are stored centrally, the nodes are much
> > more lightweight in term of code as most operations gets delegated to the
> > tree and there is no need to have internal methods.
>
> If the relationships are stor
On 7/30/07, Barry Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sébastien Lorion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I will give a longer reply later, but two quick questions:
> >
> > 1) How do you make your tree read-only ? Ex.: A method builds a tree and
> > returns it as read-only. There must be no way other
Sébastien Lorion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I will give a longer reply later, but two quick questions:
>
> 1) How do you make your tree read-only ? Ex.: A method builds a tree and
> returns it as read-only. There must be no way other than using reflection to
> circumvent that.
I'm not sure tha
C5 includes collections (maps, bags) implemented by means of trees; I
don't think it exposes tree structures per se.
===
This list is hosted by DevelopMentor® http://www.develop.com
View archives and manage your subscription(s) at http://discuss.develop.com
Not really ... C5 has yet another RB tree implementation, for bag, set and
dictionary. And that's pretty much all of it unless something escaped me.
Sébastien
On 7/29/07, Paulo Mouat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Use the C5 collection library. Lots of tree-related goodness there.
>
> //p
> Paulo
Use the C5 collection library. Lots of tree-related goodness there.
//p
Paulo Mouat
VP Software Development
Thomson TradeWeb LLC
On 7/29/07, Sébastien Lorion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I actually like the PowerCollections a lot and do not reject it at all. I
> don't know where you got that impr
I actually like the PowerCollections a lot and do not reject it at all. I
don't know where you got that impression ?! The only change I would do is
split up the Algorithms class. It takes already a long time
to find the method you need and on some slower machines, it slows down VS to
a crawl when I
> My business need is building an open source collection component. I will
> use it for in my own software once it is stabilized.
Sounds interesting... any reason not to just use PowerCollections? I
understand wanting to build your own to learn... but do you have a
reason to reject a very good li
My business need is building an open source collection component. I will
use it for in my own software once it is stabilized.
See http://www.codeplex.com/ncollection. Note the code is not up to date
as lately I was in another country where internet is not readily
available. I simplified it and mer
On 7/27/07, Sébastien Lorion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I will give a longer reply later, but two quick questions:
I've got one for your questions... what _business need_ tells you that
you need these features? Sound like a bunch of speculation adding
difficulty way too early.
--
"It's not th
I will give a longer reply later, but two quick questions:
1) How do you make your tree read-only ? Ex.: A method builds a tree and
returns it as read-only. There must be no way other than using reflection to
circumvent that.
2) How do you handle enumerator versionning ? If I
modify the structure
Sébastien Lorion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> public interface IReadOnlyTree
> public interface ITree
> public interface ITreeNode
I understand what you're aiming at, though I have to say that my
positive experiences with functional styles of programming and my
negative experiences of the XML DOM
I meant a general tree or graph abstraction. There are several tree-like
structures, but each has its own public interface (e.g. Xml classes,
ASP.NET/Winforms/WPF/etc. control hierarchies, tree view, etc.).
Btw, there is another (and quite different) generic RB tree implementation
in .NET, in Syst
I don't want to change the
topic, but I find it surprising that there is no tree and/or graph
i dont want to get too far off topic either but sorteddictionary is
a rb tree.
On 7/27/07, Sébastien Lorion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I will answer you and Stoyan in one go ...
>
> My goal is to hav
I will answer you and Stoyan in one go ...
My goal is to have a general purpose base implementation. First concern is
usability and correctness/completeness of object model in the long term. I
can always change the concrete implementation later on.
I am trying to abstract away and put in common
as
Sébastien Lorion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Considering that operations on the tree are centralized in the Tree class,
By making this assertion, IMO you've pre-selected a particular notion of
interacting with a tree.
Usually, when I work with a tree, my node *is* my tree (i.e. it's the
root of
On 7/26/07, Sébastien Lorion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I am in the process of putting the final touch to a tree structure object
> model and implementation, but I am still not decided on an important point.
>
> Considering that operations on the tree are centralized in the Tree class,
> ie you w
18 matches
Mail list logo
