Hi Andres, <g> that is the kind of argument i was looking for, as i thought i would have a similar situation as in my small example and wondered whether i could keep my slightly incongruent definition of #= and #hash, but in a way your examples show that my problem is different, iow i should change my implementation & i have changed it. werner
On 07/31/2018 12:34 AM, Andres Valloud wrote: > The interval > > 1 to: (10 raisedTo: 100) > > can be created just fine, yet hashing its elements won't compute. > > A generous interpretation of the intent of #=, where any wisp of > equivalence is promoted to full fledged equality, is problematic in > the long run. Here's another one: > > 17/20 = 0.85, therefore (17/20) hash = 0.85 hash > > Never mind there's no floating point value that is equal to 17/20 in > the first place. It just snowballs from there. For instance, should > collections like these be equal? > > (0.0 to: 1.0 by: 0.3) = #(0.0 0.3 0.6 0.9) > > Sometimes it's just better if different things stay different. > > Andres.
