<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><br class=""><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Mar 14, 2017, at 12:01 PM, David Sweeris via swift-evolution <<a href="mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org" class="">swift-evolution@swift.org</a>> wrote:</div><div class=""><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><br class=""><div class="">Are we committed to having `hashValue` always be an `Int`, or could it be an associated type like `(Int, Int, Int, Int)`? Seems like especially for something like a BigNum type or an Array, there might simple not be a reasonably efficient way to uniquely-ish represent 1024 bits with just 64 bits.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">(This kinda feels like one of those questions where the answer starts out with a variation on “you’re missing the point”)</div></div></div></blockquote><br class=""></div><div>This would lead to an implementation nightmare for hashing containers. Consider what the implementation of Dictionary<Any, String> would look like if any of its keys could have incompatible hash outputs.</div><div><br class=""></div><div><br class=""></div><div>-- </div><div>Greg Parker <a href="mailto:gparker@apple.com" class="">gparker@apple.com</a> Runtime Wrangler</div><div><br class=""></div><div><br class=""></div></body></html>