Join GitHub today
GitHub is home to over 50 million developers working together to host and review code, manage projects, and build software together.
Sign upImprove "hash brownies" example and explanation #76
+30
−16
Conversation
|
Resolve conflicts? |
|
I'll leave it up to @satwikkansal, whose 7b22f84 (in response to my #77) landed before this did with overlapping intent. |
satwikkansal
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 31, 2019
|
Sorry, totally forgot about this PR. Addressed this PR in the recent commit 185d60c, I think it can be closed now. |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
I found the current "hash brownies" example and explanation confusing, so I'm proposing these changes.
This is clearer because it focuses on equivalence as the key principle first, without muddying the waters with hashing and immutability up front.
Once this does mention hashing, it explains it in the context of being a performance optimization (which is all it is), not as something that is central to what containment in a dict actually means.
Hope this helps!