discussion: should hashcode be calculated based on order #2742
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
jarlah
changed the title
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
What concerns me is that changing hashCode in such a big way can affect other parts of vavr, like equals. However, it seemed to not make any difference to comparing the same two (different) hash maps I made a test for with assertThat(...).isNotEqualTo(...), which is also the example from #2733
In addition, this Collections.hasOrdered and Collections.hashUnordered is used many other places. Should we change them too?
Look at this as a discussion PR, more than actual fix.
DONTMERGE :) (unless it was an ingenious fix, which I doubt)
PS! is this project used actively still? to be honest, I would rather use vavr than mock around with streams and collect and wierd reduce mechanics.