Message 81679 - Python tracker

Message81679

Author	pitrou
Recipients	Rhamphoryncus, chemacortes, jcea, mark.dickinson, pitrou, rhettinger
Date	2009-02-11.22:22:38
SpamBayes Score	0.0008362147
Marked as misclassified	No
Message-id	<1234390997.8256.8.camel@fsol>
In-reply-to	<1234389858.14.0.0634193022618.issue5186@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>

Content
> I'm much more comfortable with a byte-swap, rotation, or xoring-in > upper bits than with shifts that potentially destroy entropy. > Otherwise, your taxing apps that build giant sets/dicts and need all > distinguishing bits to avoid collision pile-ups. Would (id() >> 4) + (id() & 15) be ok?

Content

> I'm *much* more comfortable with a byte-swap, rotation, or xoring-in
> upper bits than with shifts that potentially destroy entropy. 
> Otherwise, your taxing apps that build giant sets/dicts and need all
> distinguishing bits to avoid collision pile-ups.

Would (id() >> 4) + (id() & 15) be ok?

History
Date	User	Action	Args
2009-02-11 22:22:40	pitrou	set	recipients: + pitrou, rhettinger, jcea, chemacortes, mark.dickinson, Rhamphoryncus
2009-02-11 22:22:38	pitrou	link	issue5186 messages
2009-02-11 22:22:38	pitrou	create