from looking at the python implementation, the
hash of an object is defined via the JSON string representation, right?
Have you encountered problems there with respect to numeric precision? I.e. the hash changes, because a floating point operation (common coordinate transform) yields a slightly different result?
Again (similar to here), this applies especially to parametric workflows and functions, where it might be interesting for me to re-run the script but only update the objects that actually changed in the output.
Again, an implementation on top of Speckle might be possible, but it would be interesting to have the very identity of objects (at least those with a geometric representation) to be stable against minimal numerical imprecisions.
Looking forward to hear what you think
Have a good day, everyone and keep up the great work! Coolest tool I’ve used in AEC!