From: Jens Maurer (Jens.Maurer_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-01-08 14:39:06
Before we get completely distracted by red-black-trees and
boost hash containers, I second Dean's idea:
DEAN STURTEVANT wrote:
> I think the presence/absence of hash_set etc. is better handled by a
> define such as BOOST_HAS_HASH. This is more principled in the sense
> that hash is not in the C++-standard, and can more easily handle
> cases where a non-compiler-vendor-supplied STL is used (e.g., the
However, I think it would be better to have defines like
BOOST_SGI_SLIST and BOOST_SGI_HASH_MAP which could be used
Rationale: Some versions of the C++ library have these
extensions in odd places such as <ext/hash_map>.
I consider this a stopgap fix until we can provide decend
boost hash containers with sufficient flexibility.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, david.abrahams at rcn.com, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk