From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Tassilo Horn Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: md5 and sha1 signatures Date: Fri, 27 May 2011 10:29:35 +0200 Message-ID: <87r57kfswg.fsf@member.fsf.org> References: NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1306484984 27362 80.91.229.12 (27 May 2011 08:29:44 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 27 May 2011 08:29:44 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Leo , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Stefan Monnier Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri May 27 10:29:40 2011 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([140.186.70.17]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1QPsQO-0003HL-GC for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 27 May 2011 10:29:40 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:51314 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QPsQO-0003Ir-48 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 27 May 2011 04:29:40 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:49829) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QPsQM-0003Im-7e for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 27 May 2011 04:29:39 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QPsQL-0003fF-6d for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 27 May 2011 04:29:38 -0400 Original-Received: from deliver.uni-koblenz.de ([141.26.64.15]:46667) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QPsQL-0003fA-2E for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 27 May 2011 04:29:37 -0400 Original-Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by deliver.uni-koblenz.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 54062D22F3; Fri, 27 May 2011 10:29:36 +0200 (CEST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at uni-koblenz.de Original-Received: from deliver.uni-koblenz.de ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (deliver.uni-koblenz.de [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Dadn5P+uyKuB; Fri, 27 May 2011 10:29:36 +0200 (CEST) X-CHKRCPT: Envelopesender noch tassilo@member.fsf.org Original-Received: from thinkpad (tsdh.uni-koblenz.de [141.26.67.142]) by deliver.uni-koblenz.de (Postfix) with ESMTPA id D6C7DD22E0; Fri, 27 May 2011 10:29:35 +0200 (CEST) In-Reply-To: (Stefan Monnier's message of "Thu, 26 May 2011 21:53:42 -0300") User-Agent: Gnus/5.110018 (No Gnus v0.18) Emacs/24.0.50 (gnu/linux) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) X-Received-From: 141.26.64.15 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:139755 Archived-At: Stefan Monnier writes: >> Since there is only one user of sha1's BINARY arg namely canlock-sha1 >> in the source tree, I wonder if it is worthwhile to make md5 and sha1 >> have similar signature: > >> (md5 OBJECT &optional START END CODING-SYSTEM NOERROR BINARY) >> (sha1 OBJECT &optional START END CODING-SYSTEM NOERROR BINARY) > >> What do you think? > > I don't think it's worth the trouble. Where's the big trouble, if there's only one user right now? At least, all the command line tools `md5sum', `sha1sum', `sha224sum', `sha256sum', `sha384sum', and `sha512sum' have the exact same options and meanings. So I don't see a valid reason to have different lisp signatures, especially if there's a chance that other algorithms might be added in the future. Bye, Tassilo