Antoine Pitrou <solipsis at pitrou.net> wrote:
> Stefan Krah <stefan at bytereef.org> wrote:
> > I think they necessarily have to use the same hash, since:
> >
> > exporter = m1 ==> hash(exporter) = hash(m1)
> > m1 = m2 ==> hash(m1) = hash(m2)
> >
> > Am I missing something?
>
> The hash must simply be calculated using the same algorithm (which
> can even be shared as a subroutine). It's already the case for more
> complicated types:
>
> >>> hash(1) == hash(1.0) == hash(Decimal(1)) == hash(Fraction(1))
> True
Yes, but we control those types. I was thinking more about third-party
exporters. Then again, it would be possible to publish the unified
hash function as part of the PEP.
Perhaps we could simply use:
PyBuffer_Hash = hash(obj.tobytes())
Since tobytes() follows the logical structure, it should work for
non-contiguous and multidimensional arrays as well.
Stefan Krah
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