Jim J. Jewett jimjjewett at gmail.com
Sun Feb 4 23:42:01 EST 2018

• Previous message (by thread): [Python-Dev] [RELEASED] Python 3.4.8 and Python 3.5.5 are now available
• Next message (by thread): [Python-Dev] [RELEASE] Python 3.7.0b1 is now available for testing
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

---

I understand auto-generating the __hash__ (and __eq__) for a frozen
container; that is just convenient.

But why is there any desire to autogenerate a __hash__ for something
that isn't frozen?  Like a list or dict, the normal case would be for
it not to have a hash at all, and the author *should* write out any
explicit exceptions.

The objection to that seems to be that someone might forget to add
another field to the hash during later maintenance -- but so what?

__hash__ should reference a subset of the fields used for equality,
and strict subsets are OK.  It *should* ignore some fields if that
will provide the right balance between quick calculation and
sufficient dispersion.  If the record is complicated enough that
forgetting a field is a likely problem, then the hash is probably
already sufficiently complex without those new fields.

 -jJ

---

• Previous message (by thread): [Python-Dev] [RELEASED] Python 3.4.8 and Python 3.5.5 are now available
• Next message (by thread): [Python-Dev] [RELEASE] Python 3.7.0b1 is now available for testing
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

---

More information about the Python-Dev mailing list