hash functions should not be required to accept two arguments William D Clinger (09 Nov 2015 17:42 UTC)
Re: hash functions should not be required to accept two arguments William D Clinger (10 Nov 2015 12:02 UTC)
Re: hash functions should not be required to accept two arguments taylanbayirli@xxxxxx (10 Nov 2015 13:00 UTC)
Re: hash functions should not be required to accept two arguments William D Clinger (10 Nov 2015 13:50 UTC)
Re: hash functions should not be required to accept two arguments taylanbayirli@xxxxxx (10 Nov 2015 14:27 UTC)
Hash salt John Cowan (10 Nov 2015 06:37 UTC)
Re: Hash salt taylanbayirli@xxxxxx (10 Nov 2015 10:00 UTC)
Re: Hash salt John Cowan (11 Nov 2015 05:21 UTC)
Re: Hash salt Shiro Kawai (11 Nov 2015 05:59 UTC)
Re: Hash salt John Cowan (11 Nov 2015 06:22 UTC)
Re: Hash salt taylanbayirli@xxxxxx (11 Nov 2015 07:54 UTC)
Re: hash functions should not be required to accept two arguments taylanbayirli@xxxxxx (10 Nov 2015 09:58 UTC)
Re: hash functions should not be required to accept two arguments John Cowan (11 Nov 2015 05:53 UTC)

Re: hash functions should not be required to accept two arguments John Cowan 11 Nov 2015 05:53 UTC

Taylan Ulrich Bayırlı/Kammer scripsit:

> I agree with Alex on that simple hash table operations should not
> allocate though.  I would hope for an implementation of e.g. R6RS
> hashtables to only work with fixnums in its implementations of
> equal-hash, string[-ci]-hash and symbol-hash.

There is nothing to prevent an implementation from doing so.  My
sample implementation of SRFI 128 reduces lists, vectors, and
strings mod 2^20 rather than taking the risk of overflowing into
a flonum on Scheme systems (such as plain Chicken) where that is
possible.

--
John Cowan          http://www.ccil.org/~cowan        xxxxxx@ccil.org
But that, he realized, was a foolish thought; as no one knew better than
he that the Wall had no other side.
        --Arthur C. Clarke, "The Wall of Darkness"