[v3] libstdc++/51558

[Paolo Carlini]

On 12/15/2011 12:49 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> Sorry for not thinking of it sooner, but it occurs to me now that 
> "std::hash is not specialized for this type" might be better than 
> "std::hash must be specialized for this type", because it isn't true 
> that it *must* be specialized, users have the option of providing 
> their own alternative hash function instead of specializing std::hash 
> (as you've done in the testsuite with X_hash) 
Indeed, very good point, I'll change that.

Paolo.