There is a lot of incoherence and inconsistencies in sage hash functions. Two reasons that might explain the design in some particular situation
* high hash collisions with tuple of integers in Python (because hash(-1) is -2) >>> hash((-1,-2)) == hash((-1,-1)) True * speed. With your version the code would create a tuple (admittedly this is rather fast). Le 21/10/2021 à 05:19, Lorenz Panny a écrit :
I've seen handrolled __hash__ methods in quite a few places: They usually take individual hashes of the data defining the object and combine them in some arbitrary-looking way. Two examples I came across recently: https://github.com/sagemath/sage/blob/9.4/src/sage/schemes/elliptic_curves/ell_curve_isogeny.py#L1216 https://github.com/sagemath/sage/blob/9.4/src/sage/algebras/quatalg/quaternion_algebra_element.pyx#L219 Q: Is there a good reason things done like this, rather than just calling hash() on a tuple containing the data of the object?
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-devel" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/7d97ffa7-0354-01e8-65a5-00cee1577b5c%40gmail.com.
