Re: [boost] Re: [review] hash functions

From: Rob Stewart (stewart_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-03-09 13:12:01

From: Daniel James <daniel_at_[hidden]>
> Joaquín Mª López Muñoz wrote:
> > Daniel James ha escrito:
> > 
> > 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?

Such forwarding headers would be a real boon as a separate Boost
library, if avoiding the unnecessary inclusion of standard
library headers is a compile-time performance win.  Peter
suggests that it really doesn't matter much.  I guess you'd have
to create them and run tests against a large body of code to see
what impact it actually has on build times.

-- 
Rob Stewart                           stewart_at_[hidden]
Software Engineer                     http://www.sig.com
Susquehanna International Group, LLP  using std::disclaimer;