> On 09 Oct 2015, at 4:33 , Esteban Lorenzano <esteba...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> On 09 Oct 2015, at 16:21, Gabriel Cotelli <g.cote...@gmail.com >> <mailto:g.cote...@gmail.com>> wrote: >> >> If the collection implements = using the objects it holds then you need to >> consider at least some of them in the hash calculation. I can't conceive a >> hash calculation for this case independent of the contents (well, just >> hardcode a number but this will lead to always collide if used as a key in a >> hashed collection). > > it is not :) > >> >> I'm with Levente here, I think the hash implementation is reasonable. And I >> wouldn't use a mutable object as key in a hashed collection. > > no idea… I’m not using it, just arrive to that method random and I cannot > understand it. > I still believe is wrong. It's not.
Either Dictionary >> #= or IdentityDictionary >> #species in Pharo *is* broken
though.
dic1 := Dictionary newFrom:{1 -> 4}.
dic2 := IdentityDictionary newFrom: dic1 associations .
dic1 = dic2 true
dic1 hash = dic2 hash false
Cheers,
Henry
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
