#19016: A more naive sage.structure.element.__hash__
-------------------------+-------------------------------------------------
Reporter: | Owner:
ncohen | Status: needs_review
Type: | Milestone: sage-6.9
defect | Resolution:
Priority: | Merged in:
blocker | Reviewers:
Component: misc | Work issues:
Keywords: | Commit:
Authors: | 754dc5794a1a7004c8844cf7cfb64220957c36a5
Nathann Cohen | Stopgaps:
Report Upstream: N/A |
Branch: |
u/ncohen/19016 |
Dependencies: |
-------------------------+-------------------------------------------------
Comment (by ncohen):
> Putting in `needs_review` just need some efforts. I can dig into it if
you are up for a review.
Remember that #18246 is not even about the hash function that I change
here.
> With your implementation, I am pretty sure that the running time of the
tests will be much slower. Sage very often put elements in dictionaries or
sets. Your solution does not help users to see that `__hash__` is
important, because you will not run into bugs, just into very slow code. I
agree that you fix the error but you open a much more annoying feature.
If you think that we can fix the bug *quickly* by removing the `__hash__`
function from Element, then let us do that. If the result is that my
ticket will be put "on hold" waiting for something that never happens
(like it happened 4 months ago on #18246), then this ticket is better than
an imaginary one.
Concerns about efficiency do not weight much compares to wrong results.
Nathann
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/19016#comment:7>
Sage <http://www.sagemath.org>
Sage: Creating a Viable Open Source Alternative to Magma, Maple, Mathematica,
and MATLAB
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sage-trac" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-trac.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
