From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-03-16 13:19:02
Dave Harris wrote:
> In-Reply-To: <01b201c52987$e0bbb950$6801a8c0_at_pdimov>
> pdimov_at_[hidden] (Peter Dimov) wrote (abridged):
>> If you _know_ how the default hash function will perform on your key
>> set, you can make the decision of whether to use it or not, and if
>> the hash function is standard, you do not have to re-evaluate your
>> decision each time you change platforms.
> I do appreciate the benefits of stability. What isn't clear is
> whether it trumps hash quality. This is a judgement call, in that it
> partly depends on which issue is more important to you.
Both issues are important to me. I want a tr1::unordered_map to deliver
faster lookups than an ordinary std::map, preferably by default (quality)
and I want it to continue delivering these faster lookups when I recompile
with a different compiler/version/platform (stability). When either
requirement is not fulfilled, an unordered_map is no longer a better
Of course we can get this today by writing our own hashers, but the whole
point is to make this optional in the majority of cases.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk