Re: NUMERIC is HASHABLE

[Patrick CLOAREC]

Why would a ring be not hashable ? Any natural integer is hashable, and, 
actually, any arbitrary long list of bytes can be mapped to a natural 
integer.

I don't understand the issue. What is weird ?

I am more surprised by having a class "numeric" that should be a class 
"ring", or conversely. Rings can apply to more general objects than numbers.

Le 15/03/2022 à 14:59, Paolo Redælli a écrit :
> Following the inheritance chain of INTEGER_32 I noticed this:
>
> deferred class NUMERIC
>
>    --
>    -- This class describes a ring.
>    --
>
> inherit
>    HASHABLE -- *** Here ? Weird ! *** 3th feb 2006 *** Fred + Guillem 
> + Dom ***
>
>
> Indeed as far as I can say a ring is not hashable.
>
> Why has it been put there?
>
> Is it a quick'n'dirty solution or does it have a design choice behind it?