Re: [boost] [hash] regular behaviour of hash function for double values

Subject: Re: [boost] [hash] regular behaviour of hash function for double values
From: Daniel James (dnljms_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-02-01 11:04:56

On 1 February 2012 15:09, Dave Abrahams <dave_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
> on Tue Jan 31 2012, Daniel James <dnljms-AT-gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Feel free to do so. Although, I'd probably write it to use better
>> algorithms where possible, and just use boost::hash as a fallback for
>> when they're not. I think I've mentioned before that I regret calling
>> it 'boost::hash', 'boost::functional::hash' would have been a better
>> name.
>
> Would you mind explaining why?

There has been talk of other, more comprehensive, hashing libraries
since which would like to use the namespace 'boost::hash', but it
isn't available. It feels wrong to me that such a slight library
grabbed the name. Since it was accepted boost has moved more towards
putting classes in sub-namespaces. 'functional' isn't that a big a
deal, it could be 'boost::container::hash', or
'boost::unordered::hash'.