> In short: the error in Aleksander's argument is the assumption that
> shared hashtables have fixed size. That's simply false.
Well this is a bit embarrassing but I have to admit that you are right.
Dynahash code is a bit non-trivial to say the least (let me guess -
there is no point of suggesting a patch that splits it into two or
three separate implementations for each use case, right? :) and I
misunderstood how it actually works. My apologies.
--
Best regards,
Aleksander Alekseev
http://eax.me/
