From: Daniel James (daniel_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-03-09 10:33:46
Peter Dimov wrote:
> Do not give much weight to such char_traits definitions, issue 6.17
> notwithstanding. The proposed extensions treat std::string as a
> container, not as... whatever the other aspect of std::string is
> supposed to be. That is, the hash value of a string s is defined as the
> hash value of the range s.begin(), s.end().
> If you look at the container requirements table, you'll see that
> container equality is defined in terms of operator== on the elements.
> The (bold enough) author of a string that is not a container can provide
> an overload of hash_value (in the namespace of the corresponding traits
> class) with the appropriate semantics.
Well, partly I just feel like I should go along with the current opinion
of the standards comittee. But here I do agree with them.
'std::equal_to<std::string>' is defined as using char_traits. And if the
hash function doesn't match std::equal_to, then I believe it's broken.
Regardless of whether using char_traits was a bad idea in the first place.
Having said that, it is your design, so your opinion is very important.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk