Olivier Dion <[email protected]> skribis: > If we can't avoid this, e.g. we want to keep the constant-time behavior, > then we should at least document that limitation in the manual and > recommend some alternative to users.
Yeah. It’s meant to be “good enough” to select a bucket in a hash table, nothing more. > Also, I think that psyntax should maybe do it's own recursive traversal > of the form for hashing. That would avoid the issue that Tomas > mentionned with duplicated top-level identifiers. Recursive traversal could quickly become terrible though, making macro expansion even more expensive than it already is. There’s also the caveat that due to this kind of use cases, ‘hash’ & co. cannot be changed in a stable series because that’d indirectly be an ABI break. Ludo’.
