hash policy patch

[François Dumont]

On 09/01/2011 08:36 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
> Hi,
> Today, I had time to look a bit more into these issues. I think we
> should handle one change at a time. About the first one above, I don't
> like the new __strict parameter, looks like we are going through this
> complication only because we are refactoring to use _M_next_bkt, because
> otherwise, if I understand correctly, we are not really incorrect, since
> we are talking about something like *strict* equality of *floating*
> point quantities, by itself something badly defined (indeed, carefully,
> the standard talks about "keeping the load factor below this number",
> using plain English, not a formula).
>
> I think we can delay point 2.
>
> For points 3 and 4 above, I would like to see separate patches and
> separate testcases. Is it possible?
>
> Also, please be more descriptive in the ChangeLog entry, saying which
> specific functions are touched. Then, splitting the big patch will also
> help clarifying the rationale behind each smaller one.
>
> Paolo.
>
Hi Paolo

     Thanks for the feedback, I agree that splitting the patch will be 
better. I was also not really proud of the __strict parameter. First 
step tomorrow I hope.

François