From: Daniel James (daniel_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-03-15 17:31:13
Dave Harris wrote:
> When I wrote it seemed there were still unresolved issues. In fact, I
> don't believe anyone has yet posted an acceptable hash_value for pointers.
> Presumably we want to shift out bits which are always 0 for alignment
I'm glad that I'm not the only person who's worried about alignment. But
this is a problems for a cross-platform library. Either I'll have to
introduce a load of macros to tweak it on various platforms (I'll need
help there) or just accept it.
It's going to be impossible to write a perfect hash function for
pointers. I plan to start with the proposed reinterpret_cast version,
get it working on platforms where we know it's broken (if there are any)
and only then worry about tweaking it for specific platforms.
>>>For example, the proposal has no specialisation for chars at all. I
>>>can't tell if that is an oversight, or whether it is a design
>>I don't think it's either. Peter?
> Peter has now said it is a design aim. That even you weren't sure
> illustrates my point :-)
Oh, this is definitely Peter's design. I obviously like it, since I
decided to follow it.
>>Perhaps it would be better spelt as:
>>template <class It>
>>void hash_combine(std::size_t& seed, It begin, It end);
> Yes, I considered that. I wasn't sure whether overloading the name would
> help or hinder - hash_range and hash_combine are not substitutable for
> each other.
Oh yes, I didn't think that one through. It would be wrong.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk