bob at redivi.com
Tue Mar 20 23:05:08 PDT 2007
On 3/20/07, Neil Mix <nmix at pandora.com> wrote:
> On Mar 20, 2007, at 6:30 PM, Lars T Hansen wrote:
> > Sure, but the most I can do is write a clear spec. If a programmer
> > reads guarantees into the spec that are not there (or indeed does not
> > understand the non-guarantees spelled out) then there's not much I can
> > do.
> Developers read documentation? ;P The spec is very clear (thank you
> Lars), anyone who reads it and jumps to the wrong conclusion has it
> coming to them. I worry more about developers who see the method
> listed in reference docs that proliferate on the web (devguru.com,
> gotAPI.com, etc), the reliability of which may be questionable. A
> globally scoped method named hashcode with a summary of "returns a
> hashcode for the given object"... well let's just say that I could
> see a younger version of me making an assumption I ought not. ;)
> I think the global scoping is my concern, it looks too all-purpose in
> that context. Hence scoping to Brendan's proposed class suits me
> just fine.
Do you really think that people will assume that hash means perfect
hash? I've never seen it taught or used that way. Maybe it's a common
programming mistake that I'm blissfully unaware of?
More information about the Es4-discuss