On Oct 28, 4:33 pm, Richard Newman <holyg...@gmail.com> wrote: > I think John's point is this: > > user=> (take 3 (repeatedly rand)) > (0.07020342855887218 0.590736243072285 0.04997104958104426) > user=> (take 3 (repeatedly rand)) > (0.6445602419794128 0.12488917903865004 0.5784287452848529) > > Different sequences, even if the generators are the same.
Ah, right. My gut response to that is if the users are calling hashCode() on lazy sequences, then they should expect a value which based on how the sequence is generated. If they want a hash code based on the actual values of the sequence, it should be evaluated with a doall and have hashCode called on the resulting non-lazy sequence. This would also make the user consciously face the possibility of evaluating an infinite sequence rather than it being a "gotcha" hidden away in hashCode's internals. That said, I haven't read enough Clojure code in the wild to get a feel of how upsetting such a change would be. Creating a hashmap with lazy sequences as keys seems unintuitive. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
