[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Chicken-hackers] On Hash Collisions (28C3)
From: |
Jörg F . Wittenberger |
Subject: |
Re: [Chicken-hackers] On Hash Collisions (28C3) |
Date: |
02 Jan 2012 14:09:19 +0100 |
On Jan 2 2012, Ivan Raikov wrote:
I also do not understand why using different data structures is not
under consideration.
This might be a matter of taste wrt. maintaining software.
I prefer to choose data structures for their merits.
When it turns out that the _implementation_ is (kind of) buggy,
I aim at fixing it once at for all uses and users. Rather than
me and all going out and reverse a well made decision (here: to use
a hash table); all must change a lot of code (i.e. create more bugs).
/Jörg
(And don't forget that there is still the symbol table, which should
eventually considered too. Going to be hard to avoid that one
in your program ;-)
- Re: [Chicken-hackers] On Hash Collisions (28C3), Jörg F . Wittenberger, 2012/01/01
- Re: [Chicken-hackers] On Hash Collisions (28C3), Peter Bex, 2012/01/01
- Re: [Chicken-hackers] On Hash Collisions (28C3), John Cowan, 2012/01/01
- Re: [Chicken-hackers] On Hash Collisions (28C3), Peter Bex, 2012/01/01
- Re: [Chicken-hackers] On Hash Collisions (28C3), John Cowan, 2012/01/01
- Re: [Chicken-hackers] On Hash Collisions (28C3), Peter Bex, 2012/01/01
- Re: [Chicken-hackers] On Hash Collisions (28C3), Alan Post, 2012/01/01
- Re: [Chicken-hackers] On Hash Collisions (28C3), Jörg F . Wittenberger, 2012/01/01
- Re: [Chicken-hackers] On Hash Collisions (28C3), Ivan Raikov, 2012/01/01
- Re: [Chicken-hackers] On Hash Collisions (28C3),
Jörg F . Wittenberger <=
[Chicken-hackers] [PATCH] Proper fix for hash collision attack [Was: Re: On Hash Collisions (28C3)], Peter Bex, 2012/01/04