Re: expose XHASH [patch]

[Paul Pogonyshev]

Paul Eggert wrote:
> The documentation for the new function should be next to the documentation 
> for sxhash.

I just skipped all the examples related to 'sxhash'. But I don't mind.

> Shouldn't we expose hashfn_eq, not XHASH? After all, (make-hash-table :test 
> 'eq ...) uses hashfn_eq, not XHASH.

Probably you are right. I don't know the internal details well enough
to comment on this.

> Should we also expose hashfn_eql, which is what make-hash-table uses by 
> default? Or is that a waste of time since hashfn_eql is the default?

I'd say expose it too, at least for the cases of composite hashing as
in my example.

> Not sure I like the name xhash. Maybe sxhash-eq instead? That would let us 
> use the name sxhash-eql for hashfn_eql.

I tried to keep familiar names (at least for those who work on C
code), but if we change that to 'hashfn_eq' and additionally expose
something for 'eql', I guess your idea is better.

I'll wait if more comments on these points appear before creating next
patch iteration.

Paul