Subject: Re: [boost] [hash] regular behaviour of hash function for double values
From: Topher Cooper (topher_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-02-02 20:07:04
On 2/2/2012 5:26 PM, Daniel James wrote:
> I'm sorry I forced you to waste your time.
>
>
If I considered it a waste, I wouldn't have devoted the time -- there
was no "force" involved.
Things have gotten a bit heated, my fault, I apologize.
>> > As for its customisation (cap)abilities you argued earlier in the same
>> > message that a major aspect of its customizability is that it can be
>> > replaced with something else.
>>
> You seem to be arguing against a point of view that no one holds by
> using my explanation for not holding that point of view.
>
My misunderstanding. I argued that the choice required that a user
wishing some different trade-offs would need to modify or rewrite a
large complex piece of code instead of a small, simple one. Your
response was that they could just use a completely different,
non-standard conformant, library instead of customizing the code. I'm
not sure what you are now saying (really) -- that I was right and that
there is no reasonable way for library users to choose different
performance trade-offs?
I really am not trying to attack, just to understand.
Topher Cooper