Subject: Re: [boost] [hash] regular behaviour of hash function for double values
From: Andrey Semashev (andrey.semashev_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-02-01 04:43:30
On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 12:59 PM, Daniel James <dnljms_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> On 1 February 2012 00:44, Topher Cooper <topher_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> IMO a more appropriate forum would be one of the C++ newsgroups, as
> this is more about how the standard should be implemented, rather than
> my particular implementation which should really become obsolete over
> the coming years.
I think, this list is appropriate for the discussion, as it is about
Boost.Hash (and Boost.Unordered, as long as it is intended to be used
with Boost.Hash). At least, it's how it started.
> Boost.Hash's advantages over standard
> implementations are its portability and its customisation abilities.
> The former will hopefully become less relevant, the latter doesn't
> seem to have been that popular.
I don't think Boost.Hash and Boost.Unordered have to die out
eventually. One possible direction of further development of these
libraries could be an attempt to fix flaws in the STL implementations
by providing superior tools.
> In other respects the standard
> implementations should be better. I'm not going to compete with them.
A few posts back you cited std::hash implementation from libc++. I
doubt it can be worse than that.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk