----- Mensaje original ----- De: Daniel James <daniel@calamity.org.uk> Fecha: Sábado, Febrero 5, 2005 5:36 pm Asunto: [boost] Re: [boost.tr1?] request for a hash<> implementation
John Maddock wrote:
Anyone else want to throw in their thoughts? What's the timescale on the unordered container development, how much is there left to do?
I'll upload a new version to the file vault later today, or maybe tomorrow, which should be compliant to the draft. I haven't written any documentation yet, I guess I'll probably just write an introduction and refer to the draft for reference (as Beman Dawes suggested), if that's okay.
There are a few areas which could do with some improvement, such as the hash functions, which are pretty basic. But I guess they can be left for later if you want to get it in soon.
Hi Daniel, 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? Are you planning to improve the hashing algorithms (in particular for strings, which I guess it's the most improvable part)? If I could have this in time for Boost 1.33 I'd be extremely grateful, since Boost.MultiIndex hashed indices (practically finished now) need a hash<>, and I don't think it is convenient that each library ships with its own version. Thank you, Joaquín M López Muñoz Telefónica, Investigación y Desarrollo