Subject: Re: [boost] [hash] regular behaviour of hash function for double values
From: Topher Cooper (topher_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-02-01 16:39:51
On 2/1/2012 4:02 PM, Daniel James wrote:
> 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.
So your suggestion is that if they discover a problem that requires a
different performance trade-off, that they should be expected to either
rewrite their code or write an interface adaptor, instead of being
expected to rewrite a few lines of hash function code to meet their needs?
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk