Add hash method for RayVector

[alexej-jordan]

No description provided.

[alexej-jordan]

With this notion we already have a good distinction what could be equal. The disadvantage is that calculating the sign could be too demanding for more complex coefficient fields? If so, we could utilize the efficient is_zero function: Base.hash(x::RayVector, h::UInt) = hash(iszero.(x), hash(coefficient_field(x), h))

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 84.34%. Comparing base (4d753d8) to head (58c5aad).
Report is 14 commits behind head on master.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #4354      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   84.31%   84.34%   +0.03%     
==========================================
  Files         649      651       +2     
  Lines       86345    86525     +180     
==========================================
+ Hits        72799    72980     +181     
+ Misses      13546    13545       -1     

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
src/PolyhedralGeometry/iterators.jl	92.13% <100.00%> (+0.08%)	⬆️

... and 18 files with indirect coverage changes

[benlorenz]

Can you add a small test for this, maybe like this:

@test length(Set(ray_vector.([[1,2,3],[2,4,6],[-1,-2,-3]]))) == 2

[benlorenz]

With this notion we already have a good distinction what could be equal. The disadvantage is that calculating the sign could be too demanding for more complex coefficient fields? If so, we could utilize the efficient is_zero function: Base.hash(x::RayVector, h::UInt) = hash(iszero.(x), hash(coefficient_field(x), h))

I think the sign is fine.