Path: csiph.com!usenet.pasdenom.info!aioe.org!news.stack.nl!newsfeed.xs4all.nl!newsfeed3.news.xs4all.nl!xs4all!post.news.xs4all.nl!not-for-mail Return-Path: X-Original-To: python-list@python.org Delivered-To: python-list@mail.python.org X-Spam-Status: OK 0.058 X-Spam-Evidence: '*H*': 0.88; '*S*': 0.00; '64-bit': 0.07; '32-bit': 0.09; 'subject:method': 0.09; 'infinite)': 0.16; 'wrote:': 0.17; 'integer': 0.17; 'sender:addr:gmail.com': 0.18; 'fairly': 0.21; 'keys': 0.22; 'header:In-Reply-To:1': 0.25; 'header:User-Agent:1': 0.26; 'values': 0.26; '(possibly': 0.29; 'behaviour': 0.29; 'hash': 0.29; 'writes:': 0.29; 'subject: ?': 0.30; 'to:addr :python-list': 0.33; 'another': 0.33; 'received:google.com': 0.34; 'received:209.85.220': 0.35; 'received:209.85': 0.35; 'there': 0.35; 'test': 0.36; 'possible': 0.37; 'received:209': 0.37; 'subject:: ': 0.38; 'some': 0.38; 'to:addr:python.org': 0.39; 'where': 0.40; 'subject:-': 0.40; 'header:Received:5': 0.40; 'think': 0.40; 'your': 0.60; 'kind': 0.61; 'message- id:@mx.google.com': 0.81; 'otten': 0.84; 'subject:Any': 0.84 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=x-received:sender:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:references:user-agent :date:message-id:mime-version:content-type; bh=U5yAplINdw9eofzHRINCcrt9q3ILN6i+f5fiYsPbKbk=; b=YuGDvNtQ+mC0hNp9R0+sMNDEiQlzx6qq9fWspv0SSHfD0dsTFpvJX2+20S5TJ//Wgj C3dsn1xUkvaXZf+YQLvpak6B7mQEZye1BenfvcaTjsWX2td2F79LGTLjglmqbqvKxjiX iJEECNrkbn+QqR+2TGOk7vhxHYg2IKedLDKujrWGOoveCfuVKty7aE66xxFRBpbNDNwF zEK3qGMXhr7XMw6pgO8sIAZRwaxYMISGEM+RK+YyLDYxdu67p6ivV8jc/etiFzkmcIKS s59HBHarr+gG6xkQTooxX1kRifkhbQX6NsMB2J10liW2lmm1d8vl9tcGSn8+nGKP7U53 LLiA== X-Received: by 10.68.241.232 with SMTP id wl8mr10291228pbc.144.1358559399455; Fri, 18 Jan 2013 17:36:39 -0800 (PST) Sender: Kushal Kumaran From: Kushal Kumaran To: python-list@python.org Subject: Re: Any built-in ishashable method ? In-Reply-To: References: <627444785.6706139.1358510169194.JavaMail.root@sequans.com> User-Agent: Notmuch/0.14 (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/24.1.1 (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2013 07:06:32 +0530 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-BeenThere: python-list@python.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: General discussion list for the Python programming language List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Newsgroups: comp.lang.python Message-ID: Lines: 20 NNTP-Posting-Host: 2001:888:2000:d::a6 X-Trace: 1358559831 news.xs4all.nl 6856 [2001:888:2000:d::a6]:54359 X-Complaints-To: abuse@xs4all.nl Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.python:37042 Peter Otten <__peter__@web.de> writes: > Jean-Michel Pichavant wrote: > >> That brings me to another question, is there any valid test case where >> key1 != key2 and hash(key1) == hash(key2) ? Or is it some kind of design >> flaw ? > > I don't think there is a use case for such a behaviour other than annoying > your collegues ;) > It's fairly common. The set of possible keys can be much larger (possibly infinite) than the set of possible hash values (restricted to 32-bit or 64-bit integer values, afaict). -- regards, kushal