On Fri, Dec 24, 2021 at 12:14 AM Hao Hu wrote:
>- generalize the signature of __hash__(object) to __hash__(object,
> *args, **kwargs). In the default implementation, we discard the keyword
> "salt" and use the default fallback salt if the keyword is not present,
> otherwise we use the salt spe
On 12/23/21 07:39, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
Hao Hu writes:
> On 12/18/21 08:44, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
> > Hao Hu writes:
> > > >> For instance, if we create a caching programming interface that
> > > >> relies on a distributed kv store,
> >
> > I would be very suspicious
On Thu, Dec 23, 2021 at 5:40 PM Stephen J. Turnbull
wrote:
>
> Hao Hu writes:
> > On 12/18/21 08:44, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
> > > Hao Hu writes:
>
> > > > >> For instance, if we create a caching programming interface that
> > > > >> relies on a distributed kv store,
> > >
> > > I wou
Hao Hu writes:
> On 12/18/21 08:44, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
> > Hao Hu writes:
> > > >> For instance, if we create a caching programming interface that
> > > >> relies on a distributed kv store,
> >
> > I would be very suspicious of using Python's hash builtin for such a
> > purpose.
On 12/18/21 08:44, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
Hao Hu writes:
> > On 17 Dec 2021, at 15:28, Chris Angelico wrote:
> > The built-in hash() function is extremely generic, so it can't really
> > work that way. Adding a parameter to it would require (a) adding the
> > parameter to every __h
Hao Hu writes:
> > On 17 Dec 2021, at 15:28, Chris Angelico wrote:
> > The built-in hash() function is extremely generic, so it can't really
> > work that way. Adding a parameter to it would require (a) adding the
> > parameter to every __hash__ method of every object, including
> > user-def
> On 17 Dec 2021, at 15:49, Chris Angelico wrote:
>
> On Sat, Dec 18, 2021 at 1:44 AM Hao Hu wrote:
>>> For that sort of thing, it may be more practical to use your own
>>> hashing function, possibly a cryptographically secure one. The precise
>>> hashing function used by Python isn't guarante
On Sat, Dec 18, 2021 at 2:21 AM Hao Hu wrote:
> Great question. I agree that there could be other factors which slow things
> down much more than the hash function.
> I assume that this is a function that’ll be potentially called a lot of
> times, and the cumulated cost won’t be negligible.
> Ma
> On 17 Dec 2021, at 15:42, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>
> On Fri, Dec 17, 2021 at 02:07:38PM -, Hao Hu wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I am wondering if it would be good to add an additional keyword `seed`
>> to the builtin function *hash* to allow us to set arbitrary seed to
>> ensure reproducible re
On Sat, Dec 18, 2021 at 1:44 AM Hao Hu wrote:
> > For that sort of thing, it may be more practical to use your own
> > hashing function, possibly a cryptographically secure one. The precise
> > hashing function used by Python isn't guaranteed, so if you need it to
> > be stable across different ru
On Fri, Dec 17, 2021 at 02:07:38PM -, Hao Hu wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am wondering if it would be good to add an additional keyword `seed`
> to the builtin function *hash* to allow us to set arbitrary seed to
> ensure reproducible results.
I assume you are talking about hashing strings, I believe
> On 17 Dec 2021, at 15:28, Chris Angelico wrote:
>
> On Sat, Dec 18, 2021 at 1:21 AM Hao Hu wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I am wondering if it would be good to add an additional keyword `seed` to
>> the builtin function *hash* to allow us to set arbitrary seed to ensure
>> reproducible results.
>
On Sat, Dec 18, 2021 at 1:21 AM Hao Hu wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I am wondering if it would be good to add an additional keyword `seed` to the
> builtin function *hash* to allow us to set arbitrary seed to ensure
> reproducible results.
>
The built-in hash() function is extremely generic, so it can't
13 matches
Mail list logo
