From: John Maddock (john_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-02-07 05:51:12
> 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.
Agreed, as long as we are testing proposed extensions, then making them part
of boost::hash (and hence std::tr1::hash when we get a TR1 implementation up
and running) is fine.
If we want a library of string hash functions though, we'd better give them
different names - there are after all many different ways of hashing a
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk