[boost] Re: [review] hash functions

From: Thorsten Ottosen (nesotto_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-03-09 09:00:36

"Daniel James" <daniel_at_[hidden]> wrote in message 
news:d0mtqf$98h$1_at_sea.gmane.org...
| 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.. ;-)

| > 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.

Peter, I don't like that hasing a string is suboptimal. Likewise,
I would like hasing of sub_range<string> or sub_range<vector<char>>
to be really fast.

So if the goal is portability, then why don't we just find a suitable *fast*
way to do it whenever the value-type is char or wchar_t and specify all the
details of that function?

-Thorsten