New submission from Chris Rebert <pyb...@rebertia.com>: The randomization introduced by the fix for issue 13703 means that the example string hash values given in http://docs.python.org/dev/faq/design.html#how-are-dictionaries-implemented are liable to become more difficult to reproduce (in fact, the example already currently implicitly assumes a 32-bit build). Either the phrasing should be changed to emphasize that these are *possible* values the strings *might* hash to, or no concrete hash values should be given at all.
---------- assignee: docs@python components: Documentation messages: 155714 nosy: cvrebert, docs@python priority: normal severity: normal status: open title: account for dict randomization in Design & History FAQ versions: Python 3.4 _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue14298> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
