The STL's philosophy is that you choose a container based on guarantees and not based on how the container is implemented. For example, your choice of container may be based on a need for fast lookups. For all you care, the container may be implemented as a unidirectional list -- as long as searching is very fast you'd be happy. That's because you're not touching the internals anyhow, you're using iterators or member functions for the access. Your code is not bound to how the container is implemented but to how fast it is, or whether it has a fixed and defined ordering, or whether it is efficient on space, and so on.

在我看来，这是个疏忽。但是我认为有很好的理由不在STL中包含Tree结构。维护树有很多逻辑，最好将树作为成员函数编写到基本TreeNode对象中。当TreeNode被封装在STL头中时，它会变得更加混乱。

例如:

template <typename T>
struct TreeNode
{
  T* DATA ; // data of type T to be stored at this TreeNode

  vector< TreeNode<T>* > children ;

  // insertion logic for if an insert is asked of me.
  // may append to children, or may pass off to one of the child nodes
  void insert( T* newData ) ;

} ;

template <typename T>
struct Tree
{
  TreeNode<T>* root;

  // TREE LEVEL functions
  void clear() { delete root ; root=0; }

  void insert( T* data ) { if(root)root->insert(data); } 
} ;

这一个看起来很有前途，似乎是你正在寻找的: http://tree.phi-sci.com/

因为STL不是一个“万能”库。本质上，它包含了建造东西所需的最小结构。

在某种程度上，std::map是一棵树(它被要求具有与平衡二叉树相同的性能特征)，但它不公开其他树功能。不包含真正的树数据结构的原因可能只是不包含stl中的所有内容。stl可以被视为一个框架，用于实现您自己的算法和数据结构。

一般来说，如果你想要一个基本的库功能，而它不在stl中，修复方法是查看BOOST。

除此之外，还有很多库，这取决于树的需要。

The STL's philosophy is that you choose a container based on guarantees and not based on how the container is implemented. For example, your choice of container may be based on a need for fast lookups. For all you care, the container may be implemented as a unidirectional list -- as long as searching is very fast you'd be happy. That's because you're not touching the internals anyhow, you're using iterators or member functions for the access. Your code is not bound to how the container is implemented but to how fast it is, or whether it has a fixed and defined ordering, or whether it is efficient on space, and so on.