Tim Peters <t...@python.org> added the comment:
I'm with Mark: leave numeric hashes alone. There's no reason to change them, and in addition to what Mark wrote it's a positively Good Thing that `hash(i) == i` for all sufficiently small ints. Not only is that efficient to compute, it guarantees there are no collisions _at all_ in the common case of a dict indexed by a contiguous range of integers. The _purpose_ of `hash()` in Python isn't to create an illusion of randomness, it's to support efficient dicts and sets. Mucking with string hashes was a pragmatic hack to alleviate concerns about DOS attacks specific to string-indexed dicts. A better technical solution to that would have been to introduce a different flavor of dict with guaranteed good worst-case behaviors, but, pragmatically, a great many users would never realize that's what they really wanted, and it wouldn't have helped pre-existing code at all. But there's no reason to spread that hack beyond the use cases that needed it, and much reason not to. ---------- nosy: +tim.peters _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <https://bugs.python.org/issue29535> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
