Path: csiph.com!v102.xanadu-bbs.net!xanadu-bbs.net!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!mx04.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Jim Janney <jjanney@shell.xmission.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.java.programmer
Subject: Re: hashCode
Date: Mon, 03 Sep 2012 21:44:08 -0600
Organization: to the matter that you mention I have given some attention
Lines: 20
Message-ID: <ydna9x6sb93.fsf@shell.xmission.com>
References: <563f186a-edb3-4311-ae48-3af7decfce2c@googlegroups.com> <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> <k20no1$1fb$1@dont-email.me>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Injection-Info: mx04.eternal-september.org; posting-host="75975abe3fe3503ca7350803ab98e478"; logging-data="26067"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18Ee+W6HuRSYsOb5u/5tOeF"
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.3 (gnu/linux)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:Z81gNNZuYZvafUTrPKFsYshXWTw= sha1:0W9frYhyECRq2y/tYi86eJlOHls=
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.java.programmer:18525

Daniele Futtorovic <da.futt.news@laposte-dot-net.invalid> writes:

> 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.

I was going to comment on this, but when I went to pick up another
"once again" they were fresh out of them... told me some crazy story
about a guy coming through in a big hurry and cleaning out the entire
stock.  So you'll just have to imagine what I might have said :-)

-- 
Jim Janney