On 1 February 2012 15:09, Dave Abrahams <dave@boostpro.com> wrote:
on Tue Jan 31 2012, Daniel James <dnljms-AT-gmail.com> wrote:
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?
There has been talk of other, more comprehensive, hashing libraries since which would like to use the namespace 'boost::hash', but it isn't available. It feels wrong to me that such a slight library grabbed the name. Since it was accepted boost has moved more towards putting classes in sub-namespaces. 'functional' isn't that a big a deal, it could be 'boost::container::hash', or 'boost::unordered::hash'.