Subject: Re: [Boost-users] boost::hash and string conflicts
From: Daniel James (dnljms_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-04-07 14:33:18
On 7 April 2011 18:56, Scott McMurray <me22.ca+boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> Having some collisions is the expected behaviour of a
> (non-cryptographic) hash function. With a birthday search you can
> easily find thousands of examples.
True, but there are better hash functions than boost::hash. Murmer
hash, perhaps:
http://code.google.com/p/smhasher/