Subject: Re: [boost] [hash] regular behaviour of hash function for double values
From: Daniel James (dnljms_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-02-01 16:02:16
On 1 February 2012 20:43, Topher Cooper <topher_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> On 2/1/2012 3:59 AM, Daniel James wrote:
>> There are very good alternative open source implementations out there.
>> You shouldn't need to rewrite anything.
> But if, as you say, the standard implies this trade-off, then conformant
> implementations will end up with roughly the same trade-off.
I meant alternative open source hash tables, not necessarily ones that
meet the standard's unordered container requirements.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk