[erlang-patches] [jinterface] added OtpMbox.hash()
Tue Sep 21 11:51:20 CEST 2010
On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 07:11:51PM +0200, Vlad Dumitrescu wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 17:10, Raimo Niskanen
> <> wrote:
> > Excuse me for a maybe stupid question...
> > Why is it necessary?
> > Calling self.hashCode() from a class inheriting from Object
> > should be done through inheritance without the patch.
> > Is there some tool complaining if both are not overridden
> > even if the result is correct (or is it not?), or have
> > have the rules changed since the old days, or am
> > I missing something?...
> Not a stupid question, but almost every static analysis tool complains
> about this.
> In any case, the patch calls self.hash(), not super.hash(). Whatever
> is compared in equals() should be included when computing the hash.
Thank you, now I see the light! I have been programming Erlang too
long and mistook 'self' with 'this'...
So the current inherited hashCode() function is incorrect
in calling super.hashCode(). We will take the patch as it is,
a test case seems to be not worth the trouble.
> best regards,
> erlang-patches (at) erlang.org mailing list.
> See http://www.erlang.org/faq.html
> To unsubscribe; mailto:
/ Raimo Niskanen, Erlang/OTP, Ericsson AB
More information about the erlang-patches