Path: csiph.com!usenet.pasdenom.info!news.albasani.net!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!mx04.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Daniele Futtorovic <da.futt.news@laposte-dot-net.invalid>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.java.programmer
Subject: Re: hashCode
Date: Mon, 03 Sep 2012 00:47:29 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 13
Message-ID: <k20no1$1fb$1@dont-email.me>
References: <563f186a-edb3-4311-ae48-3af7decfce2c@googlegroups.com>	<503bfd0f$0$282$14726298@news.sunsite.dk>	<CNT_r.5387$pd4.3890@newsfe21.iad> <k1h1sp$qdf$1@dont-email.me>	<PPadnUGBC8NIuKHNnZ2dnUVZ_gudnZ2d@earthlink.com>	<k1hgt4$vk5$1@dont-email.me>	<BbednWMHAfFh5qHNnZ2dnUVZ_r-dnZ2d@earthlink.com>	<k1ir2n$au0$1@dont-email.me> <3zc%r.5945$pd4.2658@newsfe21.iad>	<k1jm6i$s5k$1@dont-email.me> <zSs%r.2724$Wh5.2588@newsfe14.iad>	<k1lo7d$835$1@dont-email.me> <k1oqsq$p0u$1@dont-email.me>	<k1p4rh$im0$1@dont-email.me> <k1p6vk$s4p$1@dont-email.me>	<ydnzk5brte4.fsf@shell.xmission.com> <k1qlpa$kjv$1@dont-email.me>	<ydnvcfzrr5r.fsf@shell.xmission.com>	<c230ca57-ae64-4a1c-8799-52bb2a7641e1@googlegroups.com>	<ydnipbysmzv.fsf@shell.xmission.com>	<cac34249-3fbb-4ddf-b1fa-903375e51c2e@googlegroups.com> <ydnehmks428.fsf@shell.xmission.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 2 Sep 2012 22:48:33 +0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: mx04.eternal-september.org; posting-host="704ae1534455d78b0aceda2a23466f43"; logging-data="1515"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/cIWJyrUx5pJRKXVFHUAfo"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-GB; rv:1.9.2.28) Gecko/20120306 Thunderbird/3.1.20
In-Reply-To: <ydnehmks428.fsf@shell.xmission.com>
Cancel-Lock: sha1:2LnoVOcpIo4HxXHFpj6T5Ujxago=
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.java.programmer:18516

On 02/09/2012 19:54, Jim Janney allegedly wrote:
> It's also true that the majority of hash functions should depend only
> on publically available data.  This is not "rubbish" 

Indeed, *that* is not. It's merely questionable.

Mandating that *every* class conform to this scheme, however, is rubbish.

All this discussion is essentially an invitation to throw access control
to the four winds.

-- 
DF.