On 31 January 2012 17:57, Andrey Semashev <andrey.semashev@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tuesday, January 31, 2012 18:33:25 Thomas Klimpel wrote:
but my understanding is that it's the hash function's job.
What do you mean by "my understanding"? Your understanding of the standard, or your understanding of the best solution, or your understanding of that conversation? You also advocated your "understanding" during that conversation.
The standard doesn't favor or preclude either approach, so either way the implementation would be conforming. So, you might say it's my understanding of both the standard and the "best" solution. I realize that my opponent had a different opinion on this and I didn't convince him.
The requirements for the hash function are: For two diļ¬erent values t1 and t2, the probability that h(t1) and h(t2) compare equal should be very small, approaching 1.0 / numeric_- limits<size_t>::max(). There's no requirement about how h(t1) and h(t2) are distributed so it must be the container's responsibility, since the container must work well with any hash function that meets these requirements. How else can you interpret it?