Skip to content
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

core::hashmap::linear::Linear{Map,Set} -> core::hashmap::Hash{Map,Set} #5696

Closed
wants to merge 2 commits into from
Closed

Conversation

thestinger
Copy link
Contributor

This naming is free now that oldmap has finally been removed, so this is a search-and-replace to take advantage of that. It might as well be called HashMap instead of being named after the specific implementation, since there's only one.

SipHash distributes keys so well that I don't think there will ever be much need to use anything but a simple hash table with open addressing. If there is a better way to do it, it will probably be better in all cases and can just be the default implementation.

A cuckoo-hashing implementation combining a weaker hash with SipHash could be useful, but that won't be as general purpose - you would need to write a separate fast hash function specialized for the type to really take advantage of it (like taking a page from libstdc++/libc++ and just using the integer value as the "hash"). I think a more specific naming for a truly alternative implementation like that would be fine, with the nice naming reserved for the general purpose container.

bors added a commit that referenced this pull request Apr 3, 2013
This naming is free now that `oldmap` has finally been removed, so this is a search-and-replace to take advantage of that. It might as well be called `HashMap` instead of being named after the specific implementation, since there's only one.

SipHash distributes keys so well that I don't think there will ever be much need to use anything but a simple hash table with open addressing. If there *is* a better way to do it, it will probably be better in all cases and can just be the default implementation. 

A cuckoo-hashing implementation combining a weaker hash with SipHash could be useful, but that won't be as general purpose - you would need to write a separate fast hash function specialized for the type to really take advantage of it (like taking a page from libstdc++/libc++ and just using the integer value as the "hash"). I think a more specific naming for a truly alternative implementation like that would be fine, with the nice naming reserved for the general purpose container.
@bors bors closed this Apr 3, 2013
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants