Boost logo

Boost :

From: Jeremy Maitin-Shepard (jbms_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-01-02 19:48:52

David Abrahams <dave_at_[hidden]> writes:

> Jeremy Maitin-Shepard <jbms_at_[hidden]> writes:
>> The behavior of rehash in the case that an exception is thrown by the
>> hash function is not specified in the proposal. In this
>> implementation, if an exception is thrown by a hash function during a
>> rehash operation, the hash table is cleared. This appears to be better
>> behavior than leaving the container in state where it contains an
>> arbitrary set of elements.

> Why is that better? It seems overconstrained to me.

I have a hard time seeing what a user would do with the remaining
elements other than erase them. Also, if the elements are not
cleared, there are three possibilities for choosing which set of
elements to include: the elements in the existing buckets, the elements
in the new buckets, or the largest set of elements. Or, the issue
could be avoided by caching the hash codes.

Jeremy Maitin-Shepard

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at