Martin v. Löwis added the comment: Am 29.08.12 22:04, schrieb Stefan Krah: > In the memoryview-hash thread on python-dev [1] this objection was > addressed by demanding from exporters that they all use: > > hash(x) == hash(x.tobytes()) > > Since the previous equality concept was also based on > x.tobytes() == y.tobytes(), this wasn't a problem.
In the light of this requirement, it's even more difficult to ask people that they change their hashing, since some exporters may already comply with that original request. > The new equality definition and any possible new hash definition should > probably also be part of the buffer API documentation, since they > aren't memoryview specific. That's not true: they *are* memoryview-specific. The notion of equality is entirely one of memoryview objects, not of buffers. I still maintain that specifying hashing for memoryviews under the new equality definition is just not feasible, and that we should give up on it (except perhaps supporting the hashing of bytes views). I also question whether it is useful to hash arbitrarily-shaped read-only buffers (along with questioning whether people will actually *have* arbitrarily-shaped read-only buffers). Stefan: please do propose a semantics also along with proposing interfaces. ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue15814> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com