Hashable instead?

[Seivan]

Instead of Equatable, how about Hashable based on its content?
It would support being used in a Set and would use the same fields as the current implementation of Equatable supports.

[sergdort]

Hi, @seivan I see your point.
But my concern is that not everybody needs Hashable for each type.
And there are several ways how to implement hashValue
If you think that there is a popular way, that we can generate, I'd love to see

[Seivan]

I'm thinking, that as long as every property is hashable it's class could be as well.

If you're hashable, you're also going to be equatable. So why not?

[sergdort]

I mean the popular way to generate hashValue is for example

struct Person: Hashable {
    var name: String
    var  age: Int
    var hashValue: Int {
          return name.hashValue ^ age.hashValue
    }
}

I wonder if its ok to generate it by default like this

If so, I would consider to make a separate xcode extension under this project which will generate Hashable conformance as well.

Because in my project for example we don't need Hashable for our domain objects

[Seivan]

I tend to use OrderedSet (custom) and Set a lot for when uniqueness matters, but that could just be me.

Thanks for ^, I didn't actually know about that!

[WANG Jie]

hi, @seivan, I have a implementation for this here, https://github.com/WANGjieJacques/CodeGenerator, this implementation is inspired by IntelliJ.