Re: [Boost-Users] Re: Association Library?

rzako23 wrote:

Thank you to everyone for your interest and suggestions.

Following are specific responses to recent postings.

Rob Zako

--- In Boost-Users@y... #684, Craig Hicks wrote:

...

Actually, such a functionality does exist in Boost. That is because an arbitrary many-to-many mapping with per-node and per-edge data can be represented by a graph which stores per-node and per-edge data.

Yes, Craig, I have looked quite a bit at the Boost Graph Library. A lot of thought has gone into this library and it is very general.

But I thought that a graph can represent only an association between a class and itself, not between two distinct classes. Am I missing something here?

A graph can represent associations between two nodes by means of the edge (or edges) which connect those two nodes. The nodes are, needless to say, distinct objects. It's up to the programmer to design a node data type which can capture the necessary information to distinguish between nodes. Obviously what I'm saying is obvious, so I think it's my turn to say "I'm missing your point". and ask for clarification. Are you saying it would be useful to have a bipartite graph (or N-partite graph) with each part holding seperate types? Is that how Tevich's association library worked? I can't recall. I dare say the BGL (or any C++ based graph) could handle nodes with different data types via inheritance (all nodes contain a pointer to base data class). Regardless, the issue of classes is one of syntax. My statement was meant semantically, without regard to syntax. 1.Do you agree with the statement "Any implementation of an many-many assoication container must have an underlying graph lurking within (semantically speaking)"? 2.Do you agree with the statement "The BGL is capable of being the uderlying mechanism for implementing a many-many class (e.g., one with the I/F defined by Telvich's interface) ? I'm fairly certain about 1, and think 2 is correct, but am not certain especially since I don't have Tevich's class at hand right now. The 3rd question is, if it can be implemented with BGL, is it worth it? You'd be able to reuse the exchangeability of data structures. You'd have a host of algorithms available. Anything new you developed might be reused for graphs in general. You'd have more time to concentrate on the I/F. Craig Hicks

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]