Hi John, thanks for your comments! ----- Mensaje original ----- De: John Maddock <john@johnmaddock.co.uk> Fecha: Sábado, Febrero 19, 2005 6:02 pm Asunto: Re: [boost] [multi_index][hash][rfc] Hashed indices preview +Boost.Hash [...]
1.4. Usual implementations use one pointer per bucket, whereas Boost.MultiIndex has two pointers per bucket. This addresses potential> performance problems of insert() and erase() under low load conditions, as discussed in http://www.open-std.org/JTC1/SC22/WG21/docs/papers/2005/n1756.pdf issue 6.14. Is this convenient?
Well it's not unreasonable, you need what you need.
BTW, have you read the committee's resolution to this issue? It doesn't make any sense to me (Bill Wade's concern, OTOH, seems very rasonable.)
6. Yet, this hasn't undergone any formal review, so some of you might> (with reason) object to its being commited to the CVS. From our point of view, we have three valid alternatives: * Boost members agree to have it in CVS without more ado. * As this is used by Boost.MultiIndex, Boost.Hash is suitable for fasttrack review. * This is untolerable and the library should be push_back()'ed to the review queue. Meanwhile, Boost.Hash should live as an impl detail of Boost.MultiIndex.
I don't see how you can place it in a detail namespace if users are going to be expected to (possibly) provide their own specialisations of the hash function object.
I've no objection to either a fast track review, or just adding to cvs,
I think Daniel is going to ask for a fasttrack review, and Thorsten volunteered to manage it. In the meantime, I'll commit my update and Boost.Hash code only, and wait for the outcome of Daniel's review --it'll be his responsabiity to upload docs, test, etc. if the lib is accepted. Best, Joaquín M López Muñoz Telefónica, Investigación y Desarrollo