Greg Stein wrote:
> Branko Čibej wrote:
>> I'd really like to see you explain why this change of yours (33 ->
>> 33^4) is relevant in practice. It's not at all clear that this
>> multiplier gives a better key distribution than the time-honoured 33.
>
> Actually, there are some reasoned/studied arguments for 33 ("it works
> well, but nobody knows why"). And 33^4 is likely a poor replacement
> :-P
Stefan's version is not using a different multiplier, it's just unrolling the
loop to do four of the multiplications at once, AFAICT.
- Julian
