Subject: Re: [boost] [hash] regular behaviour of hash function for double values
From: Daniel James (dnljms_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-02-02 17:26:19
On 1 February 2012 21:13, Topher Cooper <topher_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> On 2/1/2012 3:59 AM, Daniel James wrote:
>> I do
>> realise that there's a lot to say, and I don't have any enthusiasm for
>> saying it. I wrote the thing 7 years ago.
> I've made lots of much worse errors in the past -- nothing wrong about that.
Funnily enough, that wasn't actually my design decision. Well, I
suppose I chose to follow someone else's design. Given the
requirements (meeting the draft standard, being highly portable
without requiring too much development effort), I do think it was the
right decision. And you've provided no evidence to the contrary, which
> And you are to be commended, like all the Boost library implementors, for
> having made a substantial contribution. If you don't want to defend the
> decisions you made, though, just admit to misjudgement or let it pass.
I do feel an obligation to respond to emails concerning my libraries.
I know I shouldn't but there you go.
> The quality of the Boost implementation and whether it conforms to the
> requirements and Boost quality standards belongs in the Boost list. There
> may also be a place for part of the discussion in more general C++ lists, if
> the belief that the specs imply low quality hash functions is widespread in
> the community. Could be, but I have no evidence to that effect.
I mentioned the implementation of std::hash<int> in both libc++ and
> The point is that there is a case to be made that this implementation should
> have been obsolete seven years ago at its birth. That this wasn't caught by
> the community back then is a failure of the whole community -- especially
> those of us who know something about the subject, even those like me whose
> community participation is sporadic. We can't do anything about the last
> seven years, but I think that it is clear that it should already be
> considered obsolete, and that replacing it should be a group priority.
Blimey. If it wasn't clear, I'm very happy for other people to propose
a new hash library. This one was written to meet a need, not to be the
bestest hash function ever. The only real problem has been the
implicit cast issue.
> Unfortunately, my clients would be justified, I'm afraid, in considering
> the time I've spent writing on this as being somewhat irresponsible to them
> (deadlines long since unmet on work already paid for). If someone hasn't
> done something when I come up for air, I'll see about fixing this myself.
I'm sorry I forced you to waste your time.
> As for its customisation (cap)abilities you argued earlier in the same
> message that a major aspect of its customizability is that it can be
> replaced with something else.
You seem to be arguing against a point of view that no one holds by
using my explanation for not holding that point of view.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk