From: Dave Harris (brangdon_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-03-15 12:35:14
daniel_at_[hidden] (Daniel James) wrote (abridged):
> Well, we did discus the type of review before it started, and nobody
> raised any objections.
That's partly because it sounded like the interface was fixed and known
good. Where-as we are now agreed that hash_range is going to take at least
one additional parameter and possibly be renamed (to hash_combine) and the
return type maybe changed to void; so the interface is not fixed. Had I
known that I might have objected to the fast-track, but the only way to
know it would be to actually review the proposal.
Maybe if we are in a hurry we should delete hash_range and hash_combine
from the initial official interface, while still using them for the
implementation. That would enable the containers to move forward.
> On a related note, I am going to be requesting a review for the
> unordered associative containers soon. It has been suggested that since
> they are based on TR1 they should have a shorter than normal review
> (but longer than this one). So I guess you think it should have a full
> length review?
I have no idea. I am less interested in the containers than in the
hashing. I don't think I've ever implemented a hashing container in C++. I
don't currently plan to contribute to the containers review.
-- Dave Harris, Nottingham, UK
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk