From: Clifford Heath <no@...>
Date: 2011-04-14T06:40:52+09:00
Subject: Re: Hash Surprises with Fixnum, #hash, and #eql?

On 04/13/11 17:08, Robert Klemme wrote:
> I'm all for improvements.  But that's the exact point where we differ:
> in my opinion there is no overall improvement - as Charlie laid out
> nicely: there may be an improvement for a rare case but many other,
> more regular cases suffer.

Yeah, I get that argument, and I agree with it. But it's a general rule,
and Charlie applied it to the generalised case regarding whether, in
a fit of pure zealotry, we should require Rubies to support people who
want to redefine 1+1. I never suggested that we do, and in the case I
am requesting investigation, I frankly don't believe that the performance
penalty would even be measurable. Given a suitably designed fix, of
course. You ask for evidence; so do I.