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, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk