Re: [boost] BOOST_NO_HASH

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
> STLPort).

However, I think it would be better to have defines like
BOOST_SGI_SLIST  and  BOOST_SGI_HASH_MAP which could be used
like this:

#ifdef BOOST_SGI_HASH_MAP
#include BOOST_SGI_HASH_MAP
#endif

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.

Jens Maurer