From: Howard Hinnant (hinnant_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-03-05 21:20:17
Reggie Seagraves wrote on 3/5/01 9:01 PM
> At that point you'd like to just
>drop in a hash_map container that has the same interface, semantics
>(including iterator semantics), etc. as a std::map. (Just like me)
> I had to add bidirectional iterators to a previous implementation
>of hash_map, and have been maintaining it ever since. I would REALLY
>prefer not to continue to maintain it as I rev my environment of choice
>(that's right, Codewarrior!) ;)
Well that's definitely a shot across my bow! :-)
> I hope that this shows supporting identical features as std::map
>is extremely important in a hash_map implementation.
Thanks! I appreciate your input.
OTOH, I'm sure there are hash users that do not want the extra word per
entry overhead. Maybe Beman has a very good point (wouldn't be the first
Beman Dawes wrote on 3/5/01 3:04 PM
>Have you considered a hash_map_generator<> instead? That way you could
>offer no-list, single-list, and double-list (like Bill Plauger's)
>forms. Lots of work, but also gives users lot's of choices.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk