Re: binary trees - patch to glib?

[Axel Bock <news-and-lists the-me de>]

On Thu, 19 Dec 2002 08:42:47 -0500 Tristan Van Berkom
<vantr touchtunes com> wrote:

>       Usualy you have to decide between
> iteration and optimized direct access.
> i.e. the hashmap `get' function should 
> be faster than g_list_find.

Well, I think there are some _very_ important functions missing ;-)
something like g_tree_get_next(key), which returns the next greater
value, would be indeed *VERY USEFUL*. 

when I add such functions to glib, to who I can send them to make them
get inserted in the "official" version? :-) (and if this is not wanted,
how can I find out, *THAT* this is not wanted?)


Greetings, 

                Axel.