Browse thread
[Caml-list] Hashtbl.hash and Hashtbl.hash_param
-
sebastien FURIC
- sebastien FURIC
-
Xavier Leroy
- jeanmarc.eber@l...
- Blair Zajac
[
Home
]
[ Index:
by date
|
by threads
]
[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
| Date: | -- (:) |
| From: | jeanmarc.eber@l... |
| Subject: | Re: [Caml-list] Hashtbl.hash and Hashtbl.hash_param |
Quoting Xavier Leroy <xavier.leroy@inria.fr>: > > However, we need to think twice before changing the hashing function, > because this would cause trouble to users that store hashtables in > files using output_value/input_value: if the hash function changes > before writing and reading, the hashtable read becomes unusable. > > Hence, a request for OCaml users: if you use hashtables whose keys are > structured data (not just strings or integers), *and* your program > stores hashtables to files, *and* it's important for you that these > persistent hashtables can be read back with future versions of OCaml, > then please drop me a line. > That is an important point that should, I think, at least be clearly said. Personally, I always thought that values written with output_value (more generally marshaled ocaml values) were only guaranteed to be compatible for a given version of ocaml. I never considered output_value as a "long term" storing solution, but only a "short term" one (good example: *.cmo ans *.cmi files generated by the ocaml compiler), not to speak about calculated hash values... Personally, I *want* the ocaml team to be able to change internal representation, optimize hash functions etc in the hope that this produces an even better system! (BTW, I may be wrong, but didn’t some tags change between 3.04 and 3.05, but maybe this didn’t change marshaled values ?) More generally, the concept and importance of 100% backward compatibility should be discussed. I can not hope for 100% backward compatibility and hope for big progresses on the ocaml compiler... no ? If people really want 100% compatibilty, they should stay with an ocaml version. Conclusion: personally, I don’t want progress of the compiler made difficult by a 100% backward compatibility "religion". What do other users of ocaml think about it? (I agree that this is of course a question that is as old as the existence of computer languages: its more a question about what stage of development we think ocaml has reached now) Jean-Marc Eber LexiFi ------------------- To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/ Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners