Jack diederich wrote: > On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 2:44 AM, Mark Dickinson <dickinsm at gmail.com> wrote: >> On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 7:13 AM, John Barham <jbarham at gmail.com> wrote: >>> If you play around a bit it becomes clear that what set.pop() returns >>> is independent of the insertion order: >> It might look like that, but I don't think this is >> true in general (at least, with the current implementation): >> >>>>> foo = set([1, 65537]) >>>>> foo.pop() >> 1 >>>>> foo = set([65537, 1]) >>>>> foo.pop() >> 65537 > > You wrote a program to find the two smallest ints that would have a > hash collision in the CPython set implementation? I'm impressed. And > by impressed I mean frightened. > Given the two numbers in question (1, 2**16+1) I suspect this is the result of analysis rather than algorithm. regards Steve -- Steve Holden +1 571 484 6266 +1 800 494 3119 Holden Web LLC http://www.holdenweb.com/ Watch PyCon on video now! http://pycon.blip.tv/
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