On 2022-08-02 at 07:50:52 +1000,
Chris Angelico <ros...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 2 Aug 2022 at 07:48, <2qdxy4rzwzuui...@potatochowder.com> wrote:
> >
> > On 2022-08-01 at 13:41:11 -0700,
> > Dan Stromberg <drsali...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > keys = [5, 10, 15, 14, 9, 4, 1, 2, 8, 6, 7, 12, 11]
> > >
> > > dict_ = {}
> > > for key in keys:
> > > dict_[key] = 1
> >
> > $ python
> > Python 3.10.5 (main, Jun 6 2022, 18:49:26) [GCC 12.1.0] on linux
> > Type "help", "copyright", "credits" or "license" for more information.
> > >>> [hash(x) for x in range(20)]
> > [0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19]
> >
> > Just sayin'. :-)
>
> Yes, but I'm pretty sure that's been true for a LONG time. The hashes
> for small integers have been themselves for as long as I can remember.
> But the behaviour of the dictionary, when fed such keys, is what's
> changed.
I'm not disputing either of those facts. I'm pointing out that the
apparently arbitrary order of a mapping's keys becomes obvious when you
look at the hashes of those keys.
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
