On 7 May 2010 23:37, Scott McMurray <me22.ca+boost@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6 May 2010 06:01, Daniel James <dnljms@gmail.com> wrote:
This will collide with the existing 'boost::hash' (an implementation of 'std::hash').
Good point. unordered_map's hash definitely has stronger claim.
Only because it came first. If we were making the choice today, something like 'boost::container::hash' would be fine. I'm now wondering if it might be a good idea to move it - I think it's rarely used directly, so most wouldn't even notice. How long should the gap be between moving 'boost::hash', and allowing something else to use the name? I think it'd have to be a least a year.
The simplest fix would be just changing the namespace to boost::hashes. Alternatively, the library could be renamed to Cryptographic_Hash and use boost::cryptographic_hash as its namespace, though that would cut off the possibility of following Paul Bristow's suggestion.
Any preferences or other ideas?
I dislike plural namespaces as they can be confusing (I can never remember when to use 'iostream' vs. 'iostreams'), but I can't think of anything better. Daniel