Join GitHub today
GitHub is home to over 36 million developers working together to host and review code, manage projects, and build software together.
Sign upRationalize computeHash and ComputeMD5 #333
Comments
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
Is it just this For string data, it is better to use Does it matter performance-wise just picking one? |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
|
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
@lintool any objection to getting rid of |
ruebot
added a commit
that referenced
this issue
Jul 30, 2019
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
I think I added computeHash as a quick (and hacky) way to match ids in networks before a better method was used in #289 (preferring .zipWithIndex). I cannot recall if we are still using the old way in any remaining functions -- I think maybe we deprecated them? Either way, I think it is a good job for a code reaper. |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
Agreed – and thanks so much for the context on this, @greebie! This all rings a bell now and a search of the code bears this out. |
jrwiebe commentedJul 30, 2019
I suggested on Slack that we rationalize the naming of the
matchbox.package
methodcomputeHash
and theComputeMD5
object. Or eliminate one. (I vote to keep the ComputeMD5 object.) I recently pushed a change that makes the output of these identical.@ruebot @lintool