Say I have a struct
, which could be anything:
struct Cube {
var x: Int
var y: Int
var z: Int
var width: Int
// ...
}
First of all, Hashable
extends Equatable
, so you must implement
a ==
operator which compares two values, using all properties
which uniquely identify a cube:
func ==(lhs: Cube, rhs: Cube) -> Bool {
return lhs.x == rhs.x && lhs.y == rhs.y && lhs.z == rhs.z && lhs.width == rhs.width
}
The Hashable
protocol only requires that
x == y
impliesx.hashValue == y.hashValue
so
var hashValue: Int {
return 0
}
would be a valid (and working) implementation. However, this would put all objects in the same hash bucket of a set (or dictionary), which is not effective. A better implementation is for example
struct Cube: Hashable {
var x: Int
var y: Int
var z: Int
var width: Int
var hashValue: Int {
return x.hashValue ^ y.hashValue ^ z.hashValue ^ width.hashValue
}
}
Here the "XOR" operator ^
is chosen because it cannot overflow.
You could also use the "overflow operator" &+
.
More sophisticated hash functions would be able to distinguish different values better, so that the set operations become faster. On the other hand, the computation of the hash function itself would be slower. Therefore I would look for a "better" hash function only if the set operations turn out to be a performance bottleneck in your program.
Update: As of Swift 4.1 (Xcode 9.4) the compiler can synthesize
the ==
and hashValue
methods if all members of the struct are
Equatable/Hashable
. Therefore is suffices to declare the conformance:
struct Cube: Hashable {
var x: Int
var y: Int
var z: Int
var width: Int
}