Re: [Chicken-users] Hash table equality pitfall

[Alex Queiroz]

Hallo,

Sending back to list...

On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 10:43 AM, Pierpaolo Bernardi <address@hidden> wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 10:32, Alex Queiroz <address@hidden> wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 7:01 PM, Peter Bex <address@hidden> wrote:
>>>
>>> If they do it "correctly", how do they deal with differences in initial
>>> bucket size, and what do they do with hash tables having identical
>>> key/values but different hashing or different comparison procedures?
>>>
>>
>> If I were to write a `equal?` procedure for hash-tables, my test for
>> "correctness" would be:
>>
>> (equal? hash-table1 hash-table2) iff (equal? (hash-table->alist
>> hash-table1) (hash-table->alist hash-table2))
>>
>> provided that `hash-table->alist` does the obvious thing.
>
> I'd expect a procedure named hash-table->alist to return an alist in
> no particular order.
>
> I guess you meant to insert a couple of sorts in there.    ;^)
>

You are right, the "obvious" hash-table->alist is not so obvious then. :)

-- 
-alex
http://www.artisancoder.com/