on Tue Jan 31 2012, Daniel James <dnljms-AT-gmail.com> wrote:
On 31 January 2012 20:31, Christopher Jefferson <chris@bubblescope.net> wrote:
On 31 Jan 2012, at 19:58, Daniel James wrote:
On 31 January 2012 16:19, Kai Schroeder <kaischroeder3@googlemail.com> wrote:
Well, I tend
to agree that this is a bug in TBB
I actually don't. If TBB requires a better quality hash function, then that's fine. I also wouldn't use boost::hash or std::hash with google's hash tables.
It would be easy to provide a boost::hash_shuffle, that could be applied to any boost::hash and provide this stronger requirement (that there is no corrolation between (a-b) and (hash(a)-hash(b)). This would avoid the need to re-write all the existing hash functions.
Feel free to do so. Although, I'd probably write it to use better algorithms where possible, and just use boost::hash as a fallback for when they're not. I think I've mentioned before that I regret calling it 'boost::hash', 'boost::functional::hash' would have been a better name.
Would you mind explaining why? -- Dave Abrahams BoostPro Computing http://www.boostpro.com