>Well, AFAICT there is no mention of any of this in the document. No "promise" or any such thing has been said or implied.
I'm not sure you got the parent's comment. What you wrote about is true -- and that's what's wrong with the document. That it doesn't mention such a promise, not it describe an actual hash table implementation (where collisions are inevitable and should be dealt with).
>Please stick to what the author has actually said rather than what you imagine people are thinking about when reading the document.
Again, the problem is that people sticking with "what the author has actually said" will not learn how hash tables actually work.
>No, it doesn't tell me that at all, because that point is not brought up in the document. But is that how you think most people learn? Using common sense?
Now you're just being contradictory to be contradictory. Or trolling.
Yes, people use common sense to learn -- and to understand what they are learning. How is this not obvious?
>Sure, you think those are the logical contradictions in the readers' minds. Can you actually establish that?
I'm a reader, and immediately jumped to see the same logical contradiction.
Not even sure what you're trying to defend exactly. Sloppy examples?
>Again, the problem is that people sticking with "what the author has actually said" will not learn how hash tables actually work.
Huh? People are complaining about the implementation not having collision detection. The author clearly lays out what collisions are, why they are required and also that they need to be dealt with. Did you read the article?
>Yes, people use common sense to learn -- and to understand what they are learning. How is this not obvious?
It would help if you didn't change the context and scope of what I have said. I am not talking about some random topic that you can derive through first principles or common sense or other logical means. To me its obvious you didn't understand what I meant or what I was replying to. Its pointless to argue further and derail the thread.
>Not even sure what you're trying to defend exactly. Sloppy examples?
Not to sound gratuitously rude, but if you don't know what my point is, why not ask me first?
I'm not sure you got the parent's comment. What you wrote about is true -- and that's what's wrong with the document. That it doesn't mention such a promise, not it describe an actual hash table implementation (where collisions are inevitable and should be dealt with).
>Please stick to what the author has actually said rather than what you imagine people are thinking about when reading the document.
Again, the problem is that people sticking with "what the author has actually said" will not learn how hash tables actually work.
>No, it doesn't tell me that at all, because that point is not brought up in the document. But is that how you think most people learn? Using common sense?
Now you're just being contradictory to be contradictory. Or trolling.
Yes, people use common sense to learn -- and to understand what they are learning. How is this not obvious?
>Sure, you think those are the logical contradictions in the readers' minds. Can you actually establish that?
I'm a reader, and immediately jumped to see the same logical contradiction.
Not even sure what you're trying to defend exactly. Sloppy examples?