[#1026] Is this a bug? — Dave Thomas <Dave@...>
18 messages
2000/01/03
[#1053] rand() / drand48() — ts <decoux@...>
11 messages
2000/01/05
[#1055] Re: rand() / drand48()
— matz@... (Yukihiro Matsumoto)
2000/01/05
[#1061] Re: rand() / drand48()
— gotoken@... (GOTO Kentaro)
2000/01/07
Hi,
[#1067] Here docs not skipping leading spaces — Dave Thomas <Dave@...>
5 messages
2000/01/08
[#1083] YADQ (Yet Another Dumb Question) — Dave Thomas <Dave@...>
12 messages
2000/01/10
[#1084] Infinite loop — Dave Thomas <Dave@...>
17 messages
2000/01/11
[#1104] The value of while... — Dave Thomas <Dave@...>
24 messages
2000/01/11
[#1114] Re: The value of while...
— Dave Thomas <Dave@...>
2000/01/12
matz@netlab.co.jp (Yukihiro Matsumoto) writes:
[#1128] Re: The value of while... — David Suarez de Lis <excalibor@...>
Hi all,
1 message
2000/01/12
[#1133] Re: Class variables... — David Suarez de Lis <excalibor@...>
Hi there,
2 messages
2000/01/12
[#1158] Is this expected behavior? — Dave Thomas <Dave@...>
6 messages
2000/01/21
[#1172] Re: Possible bug in ruby-man-1.4 — Huayin Wang <wang@...>
> |Well, I guess it comes down to what you mean by an integer
10 messages
2000/01/24
[#1177] Re: Possible bug in ruby-man-1.4
— Dave Thomas <Dave@...>
2000/01/25
matz@netlab.co.jp (Yukihiro Matsumoto) writes:
[#1188] Enumerable and index — Dave Thomas <Dave@...>
5 messages
2000/01/27
[#1193] Semantics of chomp/chop — Dave Thomas <Dave@...>
7 messages
2000/01/28
[#1197] Question about 'open' — Dave Thomas <Dave@...>
8 messages
2000/01/30
[ruby-talk:01105] Re: Infinite loop
From:
matz@... (Yukihiro Matsumoto)
Date:
2000-01-11 23:42:35 UTC
List:
ruby-talk #1105
Hi,
In message "[ruby-talk:01102] Re: Infinite loop"
on 00/01/11, Clemens Hintze <clemens.hintze@alcatel.de> writes:
|>
|> Shouldn't there be a shift in there?
|
|No, please! I consider this a very nice property of Array#hash! But
|unfortunately some old behavior is broken with this solution! You
|cannot do
|
| a1 = ["hello", 2, "world"]
| a2 = ["world", 2, "hello"]
| a1.hash == a2.hash # Broken!
| a1.hash
|417265
| a2.hash
|416997
|
|With old implementation, it was possible as both calculated hash
|numbers was equal! Furthemore I consider this behavior as inconsistent
|regarding the example you have shown above.
Hmm, the only requirement for `hash' method is
* a.hash == b.hash where a.eql?(b) is true.
So I guess your expectation may be too much.
BTW, My second option was broken for arrays with string elements.
How about like below?
def hash
h = self.id
for item in self
if item.kind_of? Array
h ^= item.id
else
h ^= item.hash
end
end
h
end