From: Dave Harris (brangdon_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-06-05 12:10:53
cow_at_[hidden] (Jonathan Wakely) wrote (abridged):
> Actually, it's moot because it's been semi-standardised in TR1, not
> because you now understand the design goals ;)
Really? My impression was that TR1 had not been reviewed in detail. When
the hashing library was submitted to boost, I understood it to be the same
as TR1 yet we found several problems with it. We did not blindly accept it
just because it was in TR1.
-- 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