Skip to content

gh-77753: Add hash examples for set/dict #92549

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

slateny
Copy link
Contributor

@slateny slateny commented May 9, 2022

@bedevere-bot bedevere-bot added docs Documentation in the Doc dir awaiting review labels May 9, 2022
@slateny slateny added skip news needs backport to 3.9 only security fixes needs backport to 3.10 only security fixes needs backport to 3.11 only security fixes and removed needs backport to 3.9 only security fixes needs backport to 3.10 only security fixes labels May 9, 2022
>>> d = {False: 'false'}
>>> d[0] = 0
>>> d
{False: 0}
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Suggested change
{False: 0}
{False: 0}
>>> {1: 'a', True: 'b'}
{1: 'b'}

Note that as long as the objects have the same hash values, they are seen as
equivalent by sets::

>>> {0, True, False, 1}
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Could you please add some of the types Terry listed in the issue too? I was frankly surprised at them (especially the Decimal and Fractions with the same hash value).
Maybe this would help:

Suggested change
>>> {0, True, False, 1}
>>> {0, True, False, 1, 0.0, 1.0}

Comment on lines +4184 to +4185
Note that as long as the objects have the same hash values, they are seen as
equivalent by sets::
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

It is not true.

>>> hash(1) == hash(2**61)
True
>>> {1, 2**61}
{1, 2305843009213693952}

Comment on lines +4392 to +4393
This also means if two keys have the same hash values, they will map to the same
entry in the dictionary::
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Same as above.

@rhettinger
Copy link
Contributor

Besides making two flat-out incorrect statements, I also don't think this is very useful.

The examples are cute but aren't relevant to most users of dicts and sets. Also, it isn't the sets or dicts themselves that give rise to these examples; instead, it is that numbers were intentionally designed to support cross-type equality comparisons and to follow the rule that equal values should have the same hashes. This is documented elsewhere.

Thanks for the suggestion, but I'm marking it is closed as a low quality edit.

@rhettinger rhettinger closed this May 9, 2022
@slateny
Copy link
Contributor Author

slateny commented May 10, 2022

@rhettinger I understand that the examples on hashing isn't as useful, but does the dict example about same keys but different values not warrant at least something? There seems to be twoish open issues on this, and I don't think the behavior's exactly intuitive. If it is this behavior that's documented somewhere, then I reckon that some sort of link or reference would help.

When you mark it closed due to low quality, is it due to examples not thorough enough, wording too short, or something else? I would like to improve the docs so knowing what exactly can be changed other than the incorrectness would be helpful to me.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

6 participants