On 23 Oct 2013, at 18:15, Andy Fingerhut <andy.finger...@gmail.com> wrote:
> If we had a 'universal comparator', i.e. a comparison function that provided > a total order on any pair of values that anyone would ever want to put into a > set or use as a map key, then instead of having linked lists for values that > collide, we could have trees like those in the implementations of sorted-maps > and sorted-sets today. Wouldn't it be better to improve the way that hashes are calculated for vectors? A good hash function should make it unlikely that similar values have the same hash. The current algorithm seems to make that more likely than it should? -- paul.butcher->msgCount++ Snetterton, Castle Combe, Cadwell Park... Who says I have a one track mind? http://www.paulbutcher.com/ LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/paulbutcher MSN: p...@paulbutcher.com AIM: paulrabutcher Skype: paulrabutcher -- -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
