I initially used boost::hash, forgetting that the unordered containers have already claimed that name. A number of alternatives have been proposed, so I hoped to get some thoughts from the wider community. The intention for the library is to provide concepts and some implementations for checksums (like CRC32), plain hash functions (for hash tables), and cryptographic hash functions (like MD5 or SHA-256). Some possibilities: - boost::hashes Following the usual boost method of a plural namespace when a class exists. - boost::hash_algo or boost::hash_algorithms Following the string_algo precedent. - boost::hashing or boost::hashing_algorithms Using a gerund for a change. - boost::digests or boost::message_digest Using the name of the result of a hash, rather than the process. - boost::fingerprint (or boost::dactylogram) An alternative name for the result of a hash. - Something else better that you come up with Some complaints raised about those options: - boost::hashes or boost::hashing or boost::digests It's hard to remember when namespaces aren't singular as usual (especially for the first two, when the library doesn't provide anything named "hash"). - boost::hash_algo It would be better to not use an abbrev. - boost::hash_algorithms or boost::hashing_algorithms or boost::message_digest Shorter namespaces are generally preferred, where possible. - boost::fingerprint (or boost::dactylogram) Implies a particular use and certain minimum length of result. Which one(s) do you prefer or dislike? Thanks, ~ Scott McMurray