In python 3.4 these result in a TypeError:

  hash({}.keys())

  hash({}.items())

But this succeeds:

  hash({}.values())

The 2.7 backports of these - viewkeys, viewitems, and viewvalues respectively - behave equivalently.

See more discussion on StackOverflow: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/25293912/why-are-some-dict-views-hashable

The cause appears to be that key and item views implement rich comparisons, whereas values views do not.  Therefore dict_view objects use the default id()-based __hash__ implementation.

Possible fix: explicitly set tp_hash to PyObject_HashNotImplemented for PyDictValues_Type - and perhaps for the other two view types as well, for symmetry.

Do you want to submit a patch and tests?
Also take a look at the collections.abc MappingViews.

There is a question. What builtin types should be hashable? In particular, should be hashable iterators, generators?

I have a patch with tests for this (running the test suite now) but I am increasingly unsure if python isn't doing the right thing already.

Intuitively, it "feels" wrong (to me) to allow a dict_values view to be hashable since the mapping onto which it provides a view is certainly mutable.  And mutable things shouldn't be hashable, everyone knows that.  However the dict_values object /itself/ doesn't violate the contract of hashability - its hash (which just uses its id()) doesn't change across its lifetime, and

   some_values_view == foo

will only be true iff

   foo is some_values_view

whereas e.g. some_keys_view == some_other_keys_view CAN change across the lifetime of those objects - so the asymmetry here does make sense.  It is taking me a while to wrap my brain around this because I often think in terms of "mutable/immutable" but the only thing that's important is the hashability contract, which is not currently violated by dict_values objects.

I'm certainly willing to be talked out of my change of opinion here :-), my intuition hasn't fully caught up with my logic.

It's clear that dict.values() shouldn't be hashable -- using the identity is plain wrong here. But shouldn't the fix be to implement rich comparisons for dict.values()?

I think just a a.keys() == set(a.keys()), a.values() should be == set(a.values()).

Let's move the question about whether generators and iterators should be hashable elsewhere.

> I think just a a.keys() == set(a.keys()), a.values() should be ==
> set(a.values()).

Every element of a.keys() is hashable and unique. a.values() can contain non-
hashable repeated elements.

Oh. Yeah. Then I think there's nothing to do.

Going to close this down - implementing rich comparisons for values() does feel like the correct solution... but I don't think it's possible to implement __eq__ in better than nlogn time (and possibly space).

So nothing can realistically be done, yeah.