Hi,
On 2013-02-18, Nils Bruin <nbr...@sfu.ca> wrote:
> sage: cython("""cdef class Foo(object): ...""")
> sage: provide_hash_by_id(Foo)
That would indeed be the plan for the less intrusive version, but...
> If we can't resolve why setting "tp_hash" manually is different from
> providing a "def __hash__" then indeed, it is necessary, because
> inheritance of the hash is the whole point. And then avoiding an extra
> (cython) class at the expense of a `__classcall__` sounds attractive,
> given how `UniqueRepresentation` already has to play tricks with that.
> However, if we can resolve this by simply ensuring that some static
> data structure holds the desired values, I think the flexibility would
> be worth it.
>
>> But intrusive would be both, as I've shown above!
>
> I doubt it would be if we don't scribble in the type of the
> instantiated object (which would be the subclass!), but instead update
> the data structure right at the start.
*If* possible. I don't see what I did wrong here, but when I assign to
the tp_hash of Foo (before or after creating instances) and then create
a sub-class, the sub-class forgets everything about the hash.
Which might actually be what we want, because then it is using the hash
of <object>...
Cheers,
Simon
--
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 sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
