Re: [boost] [hash] regular behaviour of hash function for double values

Subject: Re: [boost] [hash] regular behaviour of hash function for double values
From: Topher Cooper (topher_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-02-02 20:07:04

On 2/2/2012 5:26 PM, Daniel James wrote:
> I'm sorry I forced you to waste your time.
>
>    
If I considered it a waste, I wouldn't have devoted the time -- there 
was no "force" involved.

Things have gotten a bit heated, my fault, I apologize.
>> >  As for its customisation (cap)abilities you argued earlier in the same
>> >  message that a major aspect of its customizability is that it can be
>> >  replaced with something else.
>>      
> You seem to be arguing against a point of view that no one holds by
> using my explanation for not holding that point of view.
>    
My misunderstanding.  I argued that the choice required that a user 
wishing some different trade-offs would need to modify or rewrite a 
large complex piece of code instead of a small, simple one.  Your 
response was that they could just use a completely different, 
non-standard conformant, library instead of customizing the code.  I'm 
not sure what you are now saying (really) -- that I was right and that 
there is no reasonable way for library users to choose different 
performance trade-offs?

I really am not trying to attack, just to understand.

Topher Cooper