Stefan Krah added the comment: Martin v. L??wis <rep...@bugs.python.org> wrote: > > hash(x) == hash(x.tobytes()) > In the light of this requirement, it's even more difficult to ask > people that they change their hashing, since some exporters may already > comply with that original request.
I don't think so. memoryview.__hash__() is new in 3.3 and the requirement is not documented at all in the general PEP-3118 sections. [Adding Stefan Behnel to nosy, since Cython is pretty quick to pick up new features.] > > The new equality definition and any possible new hash definition should > > probably also be part of the buffer API documentation, since they > > aren't memoryview specific. > > That's not true: they *are* memoryview-specific. The notion of equality > is entirely one of memoryview objects, not of buffers. Could you name a part of the equality definition that is memoryview-specific? > I still maintain that specifying hashing for memoryviews under the > new equality definition is just not feasible, and that we should give > up on it (except perhaps supporting the hashing of bytes views). > I also question whether it is useful to hash arbitrarily-shaped > read-only buffers (along with questioning whether people will actually > *have* arbitrarily-shaped read-only buffers). Useful, perhaps. I don't know if it is worth the effort though. We could restrict hashing to contiguous bytes views in 3.3.1. ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue15814> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
