<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 13, 2017, at 8:38 AM, Vincent Esche via swift-evolution <<a href="mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org" class="">swift-evolution@swift.org</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div class="">Hi there,</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">I've written up a proposal for an overhaul/replacement of the Hashable protocol and would love to hear your feedback on it!</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><a href="https://gist.github.com/regexident/1b8e84974da2243e5199e760508d2d25" class="">Rendered</a> | <a href="https://blog.definiteloops.com/ha-r-sh-visitors-8c0c3686a46f" class="">Blog Post</a></div></div></blockquote><br class=""></div><div>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><br class=""></div><div>(This kinda feels like one of those questions where the answer starts out with a variation on “you’re missing the point”)</div><div><br class=""></div><div>- Dave Sweeris</div></body></html>