From: Robert Klemme <bob.news@...>
Date: 2004-03-01T18:59:46+09:00
Subject: Re: UnboundMethod#hash apparently broken in 1.8.1


"Yukihiro Matsumoto" <matz@ruby-lang.org> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:1078045709.093139.10759.nullmailer@picachu.netlab.jp...
> Hi,
>
> In message "Re: UnboundMethod#hash apparently broken in 1.8.1"
>     on 04/02/29, "David A. Black" <dblack@wobblini.net> writes:
>
> |> UnboundMethod#hash is broken in
> |> $ ruby --version
> |> ruby 1.8.1 (2003-12-25) [i386-cygwin]
> |>
> |> Is that fixed in a later version?
> |
> |I'm not sure why you're describing it as broken.  Can you explain
> |further?
>
> If Robert is claiming two hash values are different where two values
> are equal (by "=="), it's not a bug, because Hash uses "hash" to get
> hash values, and uses "eql?" to compare, not "==".

Ok, the behavior is consistent then.  In that case I'd say #hash *and*
#eql? should be changed.  Or is there a reason why we shouldn't use
UnboundMethod as a hash key?  To me the example with the additional meta
data for methods made perfectly sense.

Regards

    robert