From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-02-06 06:35:46
Daniel James wrote:
>
> I agree, but should it be available in Boost.Tr1? I guess that I could
> provide two different versions: boost::hash, which implements Peter's
> version, and std::tr1::hash, which is a strict implementation of the
> standard, but uses boost::hash_value as an implementation detail (so
> there isn't much code duplication).
The proposed enhancement of hash<> is supposed to be a conforming extension
and something that I feel needs to be part of TR1.x.
On the one hand, one might say that using our hash<> would make it hard for
people to migrate to std::tr1, although boost::hash can still be used.
But on the other hand, if we are to propose (again) an enhancement to
tr1::hash, we need to have tested it in the field, or it wouldn't be
accepted (again). Boost has always been about extensions.