Re: [boost] [optional] operator<(optional<T>, T) -- is it wrong?

Subject: Re: [boost] [optional] operator<(optional<T>, T) -- is it wrong?
From: Howard Hinnant (howard.hinnant_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-12-02 15:38:35

On Dec 2, 2014, at 3:11 PM, Niall Douglas <s_sourceforge_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> Actually we need a new std::safe_hash<> I think, one explicitly 
> prohibited from being a trivial hash. I'd personally like to see that 
> become the default hash for unordered_map et al, and let the 
> programmer choose std::hash where safe.

I’d like to see us enable the programmer to *easily* select hash algorithms we haven’t even heard of yet.  E.g. perhaps they are being invented tomorrow.

http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2014/n3980.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Njjp_MJsgt8&feature=youtu.be

Howard