From: Daniel James (daniel_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-03-09 08:31:08
Peter Dimov wrote:
> It is a deliberate design decision that the algorithms are fully
> specified. The goal is precisely to not allow you (as an implementor) to
> change them.. ;-)
> As usual, this is a tradeoff between giving more freedom to implementors
> to improve the behavior and giving more portability guarantees to users.
> Varying the hash function can lead to dramatic changes in performance
> and not specifying the exact algorithm will mean that an application
> using the default hash functions would need to be benchmarked again
> after every change of the standard library.
Yes, I agree for the final standard, but we're not there yet.
I'm also a little worried about how the hash functions will vary with
different platforms. For example, if sizeof(long) > sizeof(std::size_t),
then hash_value(long) might be weak for values which only vary in the
But I do want to stay close to your design for now. It's far better than
what I would have come up with and it'll be good to get more experience
of how well it works before considering any changes.
> Of course the fact that hash_range gives the same result as hash_value
> on the corresponding container is no accident, either.
Yes, the reason that this came up, is because this wasn't true for
Jeremy's original implementation. But I think his hash function for
strings was faster, which might be desirable.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk