Re: expose XHASH [patch]

[Paul Pogonyshev]

Second patch iteration, taking into account all comments by Paul Eggert.

Paul




* src/fns.c (Fsxhash_eq, Fsxhash_eql): New functions.

* doc/lispref/hash.texi (Defining Hash): Document 'sxhash-eq' and 'sxhash-eql'.

* etc/NEWS: Mention 'sxhash-eq' and 'sxhash-eql'.

On 1 April 2016 at 11:44, Paul Pogonyshev <address@hidden> wrote:
> 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

sxhash-eq[l].diff
Description: Text document