From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-02-06 06:35:46
Daniel James wrote:
> I agree, but should it be available in Boost.Tr1? I guess that I could
> provide two different versions: boost::hash, which implements Peter's
> version, and std::tr1::hash, which is a strict implementation of the
> standard, but uses boost::hash_value as an implementation detail (so
> there isn't much code duplication).
The proposed enhancement of hash<> is supposed to be a conforming extension
and something that I feel needs to be part of TR1.x.
On the one hand, one might say that using our hash<> would make it hard for
people to migrate to std::tr1, although boost::hash can still be used.
But on the other hand, if we are to propose (again) an enhancement to
tr1::hash, we need to have tested it in the field, or it wouldn't be
accepted (again). Boost has always been about extensions.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk