> Does anyone have any issues with changing the hash multiplier for the > string and Unicode hash functions? > > Instead of 1000003, I would like to use Aho's 65599, a prime near 2**16 > that is efficiently expressible as (x << 6) + (x << 16) - x. This > replaces a multiply with fast adds and shifts (with the two shifts > potentially being executed in parallel). > > Googling for "hash 65599" shows a long history of widespread use and > testing without any problems. It would break the parrot benchmark, which has a re-implementation of the hash in Python and assumes/checks at various points that the two agree. So I'd rather not see this changed before July 30. --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4