[boost] Re: [review] hash functions

From: Daniel James (daniel_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-03-09 10:22:57

Peter Dimov wrote:

> It doesn't matter. The choice is between documented algorithms and 
> undocumented algorithms, not between the specific algorithms I specified 
> and something else. I argue that the algorithms need to be documented.

Well, the algorithms are documented. They're in your proposal. I didn't 
put them in my documentation because I was worried that if I changed 
them in the future (and I don't mean the near future, I'm going to be 
very cautious about such changes), that there would be complaints 
because I'd changed from what was in my documentation.

But I have changed my mind on this (as I mentioned earlier). Although, 
I'm still not sure if it's appropriate to fully specify the functions 
for integers.

>> 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.
[snip]
> That said, I don't see why this is an argument in favor of making 
> hash_range return something else. The whole point of providing 
> hash_range is to allow the user to write a hash function for their 
> custom string (or container) type that returns the same result as the 
> standard hash function for strings (or other containers).

It wasn't, I was just trying to give some background on discussions that 
had happened off list.