On 2/1/2012 4:02 PM, Daniel James wrote:
On 1 February 2012 20:43, Topher Cooper<topher@topherc.net> 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? Topher