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
>> 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.
> 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.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk