Group Email Manager

login signup
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 John Cowan (10 Nov 2015 05:43 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 10 Nov 2015 05:43 UTC 
Alex Shinn scripsit:

> I still think we should include char-hash and number-hash, but
> would not argue strongly for it.

SRFI 128 exposes them along with the trivial boolean-hash.

--
John Cowan          http://www.ccil.org/~cowan        xxxxxx@ccil.org
                I am a member of a civilization. --David Brin