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 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 William D Clinger 10 Nov 2015 13:50 UTC 
I made a mistake here:

> I've run the benchmarks.  In Larceny, a simple hash table lookup
> costs about 100 times as much as allocating a bignum whose lifetime
> is limited to the duration of the lookup.

The factor of 100 seemed way too large to me, and turned out
to be a bug in my benchmark.  On a corrected and more realistic
benchmark, the simple hash table lookup costs only 5 times as
much as allocating a bignum.

Will