On 2011-06-12 00:02 +0800, Paul Eggert wrote:
> On 06/11/11 08:24, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>
>> Like this:
>> 
>>  (sha2 OBJECT &optional BEG END BINARY ALGORITHM)
>> 
>> where ALGORITHM can be sha-224, sha-256, etc.
>> 
>> (We could have ALGORITHM the 3rd argument, if keeping a signature
>> compatible with sha1 is not important.)
>
> Or better yet:
>
>  (crypto-hash-function ALGORITHM OBJECT
>     &optional START END NOERROR BINARY)

crypto-hash-function is very long to type.

How about export this to elisp:

(sha OBJECT &optional START END BINARY ALGORITHM)

where ALGORITHM can be 1 (default), 224, 256, 384, 512, and make sha1
obsolete? In a sense we unify all SHA functions and leave MD5 as is.

Please review the attached patch. Thank you.

> as was discussed in <http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2011-05/msg00872.html>
> and the ensuing thread.  The above suggestion removes
> the previously-proposed CODING-SYSTEM argument that Stefan
> didn't think was needed, which means that people who want
> md5's CODING-SYSTEM feature would have to invoke the md5
> function directly.
>
> The advantage of this approach is that we don't pollute
> the Lisp namespace with one function name per algorithm.
>
> Some other comments:

Many thanks for the comments.

> Please modify GNULIB_MODULES in Makefile.in to reflect
> the new dependencies.

This was done in the original patch, no?

> No need to use EMACS_UINT for digest_size.  Please use
> plain 'int'.  We prefer to not use unsigned types due
> to problems when they're used in comparisons.

fixed.

> No need to use sizeof (char).  It is always 1.

I get rid of xmalloc as suggested.

> Please write "F (ARGS)" rather than "F(ARGS)".

Hopefully fixed.

> When creating the digest the code should use make_unibyte_string
> rather than make_string.  (This comment applies
> also to the original.)
>
> Please don't cast function pointers to void * and back, as
> that defeats the purpose of the C type checking.  Instead,
> just use the unvarnished C types.

fixed.

On 2011-06-12 08:34 +0800, YAMAMOTO Mitsuharu wrote:
[snipped 6 lines]
> And perhaps I would allocate a Lisp string with make_uninit_string and
> then store the result directly into its contents rather than xmalloc -
> make_unibyte_string - xfree, if the size is known in advance.

Thanks.

Leo