Re: BOOST_NO_HASH

From: Lois Goldthwaite (loisg_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-01-09 11:53:42

I like the approach taken in the Dinkumware hash map, where all the
values are kept in a std::list and the buckets tie hash keys to list
iterators. This is not only elegant, but it lets you step through the
values with a bidirectional iterator. Most other implementations provide
forward iterators only.

Lois

> Message: 4
>    Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2001 16:21:32 -0500
>    From: Howard Hinnant <hinnant_at_[hidden]>
> Subject: Re: BOOST_NO_HASH
> 
> Jens Maurer wrote on 1/8/2001 2:39 PM
> >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>.
> 
> There are at least two quality hash_map's available besides the SGI 
> implementation.  I think it would behoove the C++ community to try and 
> use each of these versions to the extent practical, instead of just 
> SGI's.  By doing so we may discover things that are good and bad about 
> each version, thus ultimately contributing to a better std::hash_map.  If 
> only the SGI hash_map is exercised, then we have greatly decreased our 
> experience.
> 
> -Howard
>