mi.ro at iol.it
Thu Jun 6 15:14:13 EDT 2002
On Thursday 06 June 2002 17:58, Markus Neteler wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 06, 2002 at 05:35:51PM +0200, Bernhard Reiter wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 06, 2002 at 04:51:29PM +0200, Radim Blazek wrote:
> > > (Was "Want GNU libavl ?" 6 monts ago
> > > http://grass.itc.it/pipermail/grass5/2002-January/001704.html )
> > >
> > > > > > The latest GLib is probably the closest I can think of. It has
> > > > > > hashes, trees, sets, etc... The reason I went with libavl, is it
> > > > > > is purportedly better optimised for the balanced trees, and it's
> > > > > > simple to include the files you need (two in my case).
> > > > >
> > > > > I see... but GLib is at the core of the GNOME programming
> > > > > environment... is it possible to extract only the more general part
> > > > > without having to carry also GNOME dependacies?
> > > >
> > > > GLIB can be used alone. It is why they made it a separate lib.
> > > > --
> > > > Robert Lagacé, professeur
> > >
> > > Can we start to use GLib in grass51?
> > I'm sceptical.
> > Why this library?
> ... of course it should be discussed which library (whatever) to
> use to get the set of needed functions.
I think that, apart from GLib, libavl is an excellent solution for balanced
trees (AVL and RedBlack). The 'problem' I see is that if everybody imports
its own typical libavl '2 files', you'll have many instances of them spread
under different dirs. It could be better to add libavl algorithms in a core
GRASS lib and use them instead of local copies. Or otherwise produce a
libGavl.a somewhere and link to that.
More information about the grass-dev