But it raises the question if : (1 to:4)hash = #(1 2 3 4)hash should return true instead ??
Cedrick > Le 30 juil. 2018 à 14:51, Cédrick Béler <cdric...@gmail.com> a écrit : > > Just a quick guess seeing the implementation > > hash for collections is about hash of its elements > > SequencableCollection>>hasEqualElements: otherCollection > "Answer whether the receiver's size is the same as otherCollection's > size, and each of the receiver's elements equal the corresponding > element of otherCollection. > This should probably replace the current definition of #= ." > > | size | > (otherCollection isKindOf: SequenceableCollection) ifFalse: [^ false]. > (size := self size) = otherCollection size ifFalse: [^ false]. > 1 to: size do: > [:index | > (self at: index) = (otherCollection at: index) ifFalse: [^ > false]]. > ^ true > > Cheers, > > Cédrick > >> Le 30 juil. 2018 à 14:07, werner kassens <wkass...@libello.com> a écrit : >> >> Hi, >> i guess i can subsume almost everything i know about hashes in one sentence: >> it is my understanding that two objects that are equal (obj1=obj2. >> -->true) have to have the same hash value (which is used for some >> collection types), whereas objects where obj1=obj2 returns false should >> have different hash values although it may happen that they have the >> same one. >> >> now here things don't turn out exactly like that: >> (1 to:4) = #(1 2 3 4). "true" >> (1 to:4)hash = #(1 2 3 4)hash. "false" >> well ok, actually these results make - pfffh, in a certain way - sense >> to me, but i wonder what arguments the people in the know would use to >> defend that result, if i would have another opinion? >> werner >> >> >
