20 Dec
2017
20 Dec
'17
10:42 p.m.
On 21/12/2017 07:00, Daniel James wrote:
On 20 December 2017 at 17:43, Peter Dimov wrote:
What I meant was that the existence of boost::hash makes it awkward to use 'hash' as a module name for anything else, so we might as well use it for the obvious thing.
If there is to be a better hash module, having an existing module called 'hash' could make it less findable.
Perhaps that potential future library could be called cryptographic_hash instead. (Since it can't define namespace hash anyway.)