Integers, strings, and bool's hash are all consistent for processes of a same interpreter.  However, hash(None) differs.

$ python -c "print(hash(None))"
272931276
$ python -c "print(hash(None))"
277161420

It's wired and make difficulty for distributed systems partitioning data according hash of keys if the system wants the keys support None.

This patch makes hash(None) always return 0 to resolve that problem.  And it is used in DPark(Python clone of Spark, a MapReduce alike framework in Python, https://github.com/douban/dpark) to speed up portable hash (see line https://github.com/douban/dpark/blob/65a3ba857f11285667c61e2e134dacda44c13a2c/dpark/util.py#L47).

davies.liu@gmail.com is the original author of this patch.  All credit goes to him.

Instead of 0, pick some large random number that is less likely to collide with other hashes such as hash(0).

How about

>>> (78 << 24) + (111 << 16) + (110 << 8) + 101
1315925605

The output of hash() is not guaranteed to be consistent between processes. The outcome depends on the hash randomization key, architecture, platform, Python version and perhaps other flags. 32bit builds of Python generated different hash() values than 64bit. The value might depend on endianess, too. (Not sure about that)

Return 1315925605 now :)

Is this something we actually want to support officially? Many other types have non-repeatable hashes, e.g.:

$ PYTHONHASHSEED=1 python3 -c "print(hash((lambda: 0)))"
8771754605115
$ PYTHONHASHSEED=1 python3 -c "print(hash((lambda: 0)))"
8791504743739
$ PYTHONHASHSEED=1 python3 -c "print(hash((lambda: 0)))"
8788491320379
$ PYTHONHASHSEED=1 python3 -c "print(hash((lambda: 0)))"
8792628055611

In the same Python version, hash(None) always give me the same value. I cannot reproduced your issue on Linux, I tested Python 2.7, 3.3 and 3.4.

$ python2.7 -c "print(hash(None))"
17171842026
$ python2.7 -c "print(hash(None))"
17171842026
$ python2.7 -c "print(hash(None))"
17171842026

$ python3.3 -c "print(hash(None))"
17171873465
$ python3.3 -c "print(hash(None))"
17171873465
$ python3.3 -c "print(hash(None))"
17171873465

$ python3.4 -c "print(hash(None))"
588812
$ python3.4 -c "print(hash(None))"
588812
$ python3.4 -c "print(hash(None))"
588812

"It's wired and make difficulty for distributed systems partitioning data according hash of keys if the system wants the keys support None."

How you handle the randomization of hash(str)? (python2.7 -R, enabled by default in Python 3.3).

-0.

Since hash(None) is currently based on None's memory address, I appreciate that it's not reliable (e.g., use different releases of the same compiler to build Python, and hash(None) may be different between them).

The docs guarantee little about hash() results, so applications relying on cross-machine - or even same-machine cross-run - consistency are broken.

It's trivial code bloat to special-case None, but it leaves a world of other hash() behaviors as-is (essentially "undefined").  The `portable_hash()` function in the DPark source is a start at what needs to be done if an application wants reliable hashes.  But it's just a start (e.g., it's apparently relying on cross-platform consistency for `hash(integer)` and `hash(string)`, etc).

Since CPython will never promise to make _all_ of those consistent across platforms and releases, I'd rather not even start down that road.   Making the promise for `hash(None)` would be an attractive nuisance.

There seems to be a pretty good consensus that this is something we don't want to support.

Tim has convinced me, too.