Charles-François Natali <neolo...@free.fr> added the comment: > So you get the best of both worlds and randomization would only > kick in when it's really needed to keep the application running.
Of course, but then the collision counting approach loses its main advantage over randomized hashing: smaller patch, easier to backport. If you need to handle a potential abnormal number of collisions anyway, why not account for it upfront, instead of drastically complexifying the algorithm? While larger, the randomization is conceptually simpler. The only argument in favor the collision counting is that it will not break applications relying on dict order: it has been argued several times that such applications are already broken, but that's of course not an easy decision to make, especially for stable versions... ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue13703> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
