opHash??

[H. S. Teoh]

On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 09:01:41AM -0500, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> On 4/10/12 11:10 PM, H. S. Teoh wrote:
> >On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 06:49:07PM -0700, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> >>On Tuesday, April 10, 2012 18:44:40 H. S. Teoh wrote:
> >>>TDPL, p.117, last para:
> >>>
> >>>	... For a user-defined type to be used as a key in an
> >>>	associative array, it must define two special methods, opHash
> >>>	and opCmp.
> >>>
> >>>Really? I thought the convention was toHash (TDPL, p.205). So, which is
> >>>it? Which *should* it be?
> >>>
> >>>To me, it seems utterly arbitrary that classes should use toHash whereas
> >>>non-class user-defined types should use opHash. Shouldn't we make it
> >>>consistent across the board?
> >>
> >>I expect that opHash was a mistake and that there should be an errata
> >>for that line on page 117: http://erdani.com/tdpl/errata/
> >[...]
> >
> >Actually, I looked, but it wasn't listed.
> >
> >Andrei? Is this an error?
> 
> Most likely!
[...]

So this should be added to the errata, then?


T

-- 
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.