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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

[hash.requirements] clarify that Cpp17Hash does not imply stateless #7733

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from
Open

[hash.requirements] clarify that Cpp17Hash does not imply stateless #7733

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
1 commit
Select commit
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
2 changes: 1 addition & 1 deletion source/lib-intro.tex
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -2076,7 +2076,7 @@
the program.
\begin{note}
Thus all evaluations of the expression \tcode{h(k)} with the
same value for \tcode{k} yield the same result for a given execution of the program.
same values for \tcode{h} and \tcode{k} yield the same result for a given execution of the program.
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

What if the evaluation h(k) changes h? Then, for the next evaluation, the precondition "same value of h" is not satisfied, but that's not in the spirit of the rule, I think. We should clarify that evaluation of h(k) should not change h.

\end{note}
For two different
values \tcode{t1} and \tcode{t2}, the probability that \tcode{h(t1)} and \tcode{h(t2)}
Expand Down
Loading