Path: csiph.com!x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net!feeder1.hal-mli.net!nx02.iad01.newshosting.com!newshosting.com!216.196.98.146.MISMATCH!border3.nntp.dca.giganews.com!Xl.tags.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.earthlink.com!news.earthlink.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 17 May 2011 08:56:34 -0500
Date: Tue, 17 May 2011 06:56:28 -0700
From: Patricia Shanahan <pats@acm.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.15) Gecko/20110303 Thunderbird/3.1.9
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.java.programmer
Subject: Re: Did the sort do anything?
References: <eskis656eeu0of5f5do1ogdpfbdau3d06i@4ax.com> <9303hcFq0nU1@mid.individual.net> <iqgrhp$fh7$1@dont-email.me> <jsgqs61b31jq07e1tmr7d910rfacjeok5r@4ax.com> <iqq2b2$jhm$4@lust.ihug.co.nz> <N6-dnSCv9viQDE3QnZ2dnUVZ_v6dnZ2d@earthlink.com> <iqqec4$qi7$2@lust.ihug.co.nz> <kemdnZVnBva8n0zQnZ2dnUVZ_uqdnZ2d@earthlink.com> <iqr3nv$6t5$2@lust.ihug.co.nz> <noidndppmuNYrEzQnZ2dnUVZ_gednZ2d@earthlink.com> <iqs3tn$pqm$2@lust.ihug.co.nz> <ZOOdndoMvN_sA0zQnZ2dnUVZ_v6dnZ2d@earthlink.com> <iqt73d$dqg$2@lust.ihug.co.nz>
In-Reply-To: <iqt73d$dqg$2@lust.ihug.co.nz>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <kYCdnSqcI7kP40_QnZ2dnUVZ_gydnZ2d@earthlink.com>
Lines: 33
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: 75.8.126.96
X-Trace: sv3-D4VZMCzsj+zQMWpVFHemDnp9IVsBNaMRbEe1tlonHYefMH0tZehEmI5uYjnlzB+LTbJ6M7Jo93rELZo!2b9NEDtI9eRRB58x+YloOoLbJ6ye0sQ5BfPipnZSNouFyGRNn+RKY2weIadIKfjys4mufA5r24dq!bR3WC9knz6SNzjnsKvWb3V6fuKeXfUcNuel6Orqe/PE=
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 2900
Xref: x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net comp.lang.java.programmer:4212

On 5/17/2011 12:11 AM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> In message<ZOOdndoMvN_sA0zQnZ2dnUVZ_v6dnZ2d@earthlink.com>, Patricia Shanahan wrote:
>
>> On 5/16/2011 2:11 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>
>>> In message<noidndppmuNYrEzQnZ2dnUVZ_gednZ2d@earthlink.com>, Patricia
>>> Shanahan wrote:
>>>
>>>> System.identityHashCode(x) does not necessarily return the same as
>>>> x.hashCode() ...
>>>
>>> It says it does
>>> <http://developer.android.com/reference/java/lang/System.html#identityHashCode%28java.lang.Object%29>:
>>>
>>>       The hash code returned is the same one that would be returned by the
>>>       method java.lang.Object.hashCode(), whether or not the object's
>>>       class has overridden hashCode().
>>
>> My sample program output showed both x.hashCode() and
>> System.identityHashCode(x) for x referencing an Integer. The values were
>> different, because Integer overrides hashCode.
>
> How odd, because the above documentation says otherwise.
>

Now that we have clarified the fact that System.identityHashCode(x) is
not merely a synonym for x.hashCode(), have you changed your mind about
the need, or otherwise, for stability when sorting Java objects based on
the entire value of the object's fields?

Patricia