On Tue, 27 May 2014 17:02:50 +0000, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> - rather than "zillions" of them, there are few enough of them that
> the chances of an MD5 collision is insignificant;
> (Any MD5 collision is going to play havoc with your strategy of
> using hashes as a proxy for the real string.)
> - and you can arrange matters so that you never need to MD5 hash a
> string twice.
Hmmm... I'll use the MD5 hashes of the strings as a key, and the
strinsgs as the value (to detect MD5 collisions) ...
(But I'm sure that Steven was just waiting for someone to take that