Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.python > #37074 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Peter Otten <__peter__@web.de> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2013-01-19 09:49 +0100 |
| Last post | 2013-01-19 09:49 +0100 |
| Articles | 1 — 1 participant |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.python
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
Re: Any built-in ishashable method ? Peter Otten <__peter__@web.de> - 2013-01-19 09:49 +0100
| From | Peter Otten <__peter__@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-01-19 09:49 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Any built-in ishashable method ? |
| Message-ID | <mailman.682.1358585369.2939.python-list@python.org> |
Dave Angel wrote: > On 01/18/2013 07:06 AM, Peter Otten wrote: >> 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 ;) >> > > Beg to differ. Nothing wrong with getting the same hash on objects that > compare different. It's called a hash collision, and is quite common, > especially in large collections. Of course. > The problem is the converse of this, where the objects compare equal, > but they have different hashes. And that I read because my expectations won over the actual text.
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.python
csiph-web