Subject: Re: [boost] [hash] regular behaviour of hash function for double values
From: Daniel James (dnljms_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-02-01 16:02:16
On 1 February 2012 20:43, Topher Cooper <topher_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> On 2/1/2012 3:59 AM, Daniel James wrote:
>>
>> There are very good alternative open source implementations out there.
>> You shouldn't need to rewrite anything.
>
> But if, as you say, the standard implies this trade-off, then conformant
> implementations will end up with roughly the same trade-off.
I meant alternative open source hash tables, not necessarily ones that
meet the standard's unordered container requirements.