On Jan 14, 6:01 pm, Jason Wolfe <jawo...@berkeley.edu> wrote: > I've already posted here [1] and on the issue board [2] about > hashing. In particular, .hashCode for seqs/colls break the Java > contract that whenever (.equals x y), (= (.hashCode x) (.hashCode > y)). (let x = [1] and y = (seq [1])). As I've mentioned earlier, I > hope that eventually .hashCode and .equals will be brought into line. > Anyway, I won't rehash (ha ha) this issue further here.
As I posted in the other thread, Rich just fixed this ... thanks! > Anyway, I've also since realized that .equals and = are not the same > thing, in particular with respect to numbers. So, it might be nice to > have a different hash function (i.e., Clojure's "hash"), that matches > the behavior of =, and allow the user to specify which hash function > they'd like to use when creating hash-sets and hash-maps. Following up, if the multiple-hash-function route is one that people like, it might also be nice to have the option to make Clojure identity hash-maps and sets, which use System.identityHashCode() and identical?. -Jason --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
