9
$\begingroup$

There are two tags which seem very similar:

Another similar tag is , though it is more specific.

Should we merge and ?

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I added two answers presenting "yes" and "no" as a discussion starter, and to vote upon. Everybody, note that upvotes on a meta question are not interpreted as "yes"! If you want to express your opinion, vote on an existing answer or post a suitable one. $\endgroup$ – Raphael Dec 12 '17 at 15:23
9
$\begingroup$

If there is any distinction between hash(es) and hashing, the differences are small in the context of computer science. We usually study hash functions to do hashing, and hashing is impossible without hash functions.

Therefore, it is reasonable to link the two as synonyms. Following our usual conventions and to emphasize the algorithmic focus, I'd propose .

$\endgroup$
2
$\begingroup$

Some stats: there are 145 questions tagged , 121 of which not tagged as well, and 55 questions tagged , 31 of which not tagged as well. This seems to suggest that they are used differently.

One attempt at a distinction:

  • may refer to (mathematical) hash functions themselves. Is this hash function universal? What properties does h(x) = f(g(x)) have?
  • may refer to the process of hashing things. Can hashing help searching stuff in this scenario? What is the cost of hashing these things?

If we think the difference is pronounced enough to warrant separate tags we should

  1. consider if the tags can be clarified, e.g. instead of , and
  2. create resp. improve the tag descriptions to better guide taggers.
$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ FWIW, I haven't had the time to go through many questions to check if the tags are actually used reasonably and with distinction. I'd appreciate any input. $\endgroup$ – Raphael Dec 12 '17 at 15:22

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .