Hi Daniel, ----- Mensaje original ----- De: Daniel James <daniel@calamity.org.uk> Fecha: Domingo, Febrero 6, 2005 7:12 pm Asunto: [boost] Re: [boost.tr1?] request for a hash<> implementation
JOAQUIN LOPEZ MU?Z wrote:
What I'm interested in in the short term is the hash<> functor alone. Of course unordered containers are much more interesting, but this will have to undergo the usual review process, I guess. Do you think we can put your hash<> implementation under boost/functional/hash.hpp and have some short docs for it?
I've just uploaded a new version. I've rewritten the hash functions based on Peter's design. I'll write some documentation and some more tests soon.
You've been fast! I've taken a look at your stuff and have a couple of concerns/suggestions: 1. Now the file is boost/hash/functional.hpp. Wouldn't it be better to call it boost/functional/hash.hpp? As I see it, hash<> is part of TR1 future <functional>, so the naming I propose looks more consistent. 2. The header includes <set> and <map>, which can be quite heavy if the user has no intention to use the corresponding hash_value overloads. Alas, I don't know of any way to avoid the inclusions, since a forward declaration of these containers can fail due to the freedom stdlib implementers have to add additional template parameters to those specified by the standard. Any idea? I'll soon bundle your header with a preview of hashed indices for Boost.MultiIndex, probably the next week. Thank you so much for your effort, Joaquín M López Muñoz Telefónica, Investigación y Desarrollo