In-Reply-To: <d11prg$uvt$1@sea.gmane.org> daniel@calamity.org.uk (Daniel James) wrote (abridged):
Well, we did discus the type of review before it started, and nobody raised any objections.
That's partly because it sounded like the interface was fixed and known good. Where-as we are now agreed that hash_range is going to take at least one additional parameter and possibly be renamed (to hash_combine) and the return type maybe changed to void; so the interface is not fixed. Had I known that I might have objected to the fast-track, but the only way to know it would be to actually review the proposal. Maybe if we are in a hurry we should delete hash_range and hash_combine from the initial official interface, while still using them for the implementation. That would enable the containers to move forward.
On a related note, I am going to be requesting a review for the unordered associative containers soon. It has been suggested that since they are based on TR1 they should have a shorter than normal review (but longer than this one). So I guess you think it should have a full length review?
I have no idea. I am less interested in the containers than in the hashing. I don't think I've ever implemented a hashing container in C++. I don't currently plan to contribute to the containers review. -- Dave Harris, Nottingham, UK