From: JOAQUIN LOPEZ MU?Z (joaquin_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-02-05 12:09:01
----- Mensaje original -----
De: Daniel James <daniel_at_[hidden]>
Fecha: Sábado, Febrero 5, 2005 5:36 pm
Asunto: [boost] Re: [boost.tr1?] request for a hash<> implementation
> John Maddock wrote:
> > Anyone else want to throw in their thoughts? What's the
> timescale on
> > the unordered container development, how much is there left to do?
> I'll upload a new version to the file vault later today, or maybe
> tomorrow, which should be compliant to the draft. I haven't
> written any
> documentation yet, I guess I'll probably just write an
> introduction and
> refer to the draft for reference (as Beman Dawes suggested), if
> that's okay.
> There are a few areas which could do with some improvement, such
> as the
> hash functions, which are pretty basic. But I guess they can be
> left for
> later if you want to get it in soon.
What I'm interested in in the short term is the hash<> functor
alone. Of course unordered containers are much more interesting,
but this will have to undergo the usual review process, I guess.
Do you think we can put your hash<> implementation under
boost/functional/hash.hpp and have some short docs for it?
Are you planning to improve the hashing algorithms (in particular
for strings, which I guess it's the most improvable part)?
If I could have this in time for Boost 1.33 I'd be extremely
grateful, since Boost.MultiIndex hashed indices (practically
finished now) need a hash<>, and I don't think it is convenient
that each library ships with its own version.
Joaquín M López Muñoz
Telefónica, Investigación y Desarrollo
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk