Re: [Bloom] Some questions

From: Ivan Matek (libbooze_at_[hidden])
Date: 2025-05-18 17:29:50

On Sun, May 18, 2025 at 5:59 PM Joaquin M López Muñoz via Boost <
boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> I don't know, looks to me ugly and potentially confusing to users,
> who have no real use for that.
>
To be honest I do not think it is so bad, you could just document it is a
common "primitive" used when it comes to index computation, and then users
will know why it is where it is.
Only thing I suggest is to not put it in core. I have seen
core/util/common/whatever_name bloat in many projects and I am not a fan of
that.

> In fact, there's another piece of functionality that I'd rather have
> migrated to ContainerHash, namely the is_avalanching trait. Currently
> this lives in Boost.Unordered, which forces Boost.Bloom to depend on it
> for no other reason than to access this almost trivial utility --not ideal,
> obviously.
>
I would be a big fan philosophically of trait being in a small
header/library. For related example I dislike that for iterator_tags  you
must include heavy std header, when it is trivial functionality. IIRC there
are even Boost libs that are defining them just to get around the include.
:)

>
> Can you please post here the entire warning message so that I can
> locate the offending line, plus the environment (compiler and version)
> you're using? Thank you!

It is IDE clang-tidy warning, not sure compiler matters.
https://clang.llvm.org/extra/clang-tidy/checks/readability/redundant-inline-specifier.html