Scott A Crosby wrote:
> 
> Just found this online. Apparently the origional page is dead, but google
> has cached it.
> 
> http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:lTJRondwlQgC:burtleburtle.net/bob/hash/doobs.html+hash+hashing+rotate&hl=en

Very nice paper!

> 
> Now, do we want to consider using this or something like it for squeak?

Sounds reasonable to me.

> 
> BTW, we might be able to make hashing strings and byte arrays go a bit
> faster, by, say, only hashing the first 100 bytes.

There could be a problem: what about a set of byte arrays equal in just the
first 100 bytes?
I'd prefer the slower, but safe version, as default.

And we should use only 31 bits of the 32 bit hash value and return them as
SmallInteger instead of going into the LargeInteger range.


Greetings,

Stephan

> 
> Scott

-- 
Stephan Rudlof (sr at evolgo.de)
   "Genius doesn't work on an assembly line basis.
    You can't simply say, 'Today I will be brilliant.'"
    -- Kirk, "The Ultimate Computer", stardate 4731.3