On Fri, 2012-01-06 at 09:48 +1100, Bojan Smojver wrote: > The apr_hashfunc_t function prototype would then most likely have to > change. We'd probably need to pass the hash itself into it, which > would then hold the per-hash seed. Right?
Actually, that would not be a good plan. A custom hash function would not be able to see inside the hash structure, because it's opaque. Most likely, the seed itself would have to be passed around as the third argument. Any other ideas? PS. Of course, this kind of thing cannot be done before 2.0. -- Bojan
