[boost] Re: [review] hash functions

From: Daniel James (daniel_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-03-09 10:41:12

Joaquín Mª López Muñoz wrote:
> Daniel James ha escrito:
>>I'm not happy with this either.
> 
> 
> Why not? Sure it has the overhead of checking validity against
> every new stdlib that comes around, but you've already commited
> to this kind of activity with the workarounds on float_functions.hpp
> Besides, the amount of work needed to accommodate a new
> library is 0 in most cases and negligible in the rare cases where
> extra template parms are used.

Sorry, I meant: 'I'm not happy with the current situation either'.

I suppose if there are any real problems with providing our own 
declarations then someone will point them out soon. Anyone?

Daniel