From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Leo Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Adding sha256 and sha512 to C? Date: Sun, 29 May 2011 12:22:59 +0800 Message-ID: References: <19936.26998.559386.371174@priss.frightenedpiglet.com> <4DE072EE.4030303@cs.ucla.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1306643031 17689 80.91.229.12 (29 May 2011 04:23:51 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 29 May 2011 04:23:51 +0000 (UTC) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sun May 29 06:23:48 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 1QQXXX-0002f0-Gy for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 29 May 2011 06:23:47 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:35389 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QQXXW-0004Tl-OZ for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 29 May 2011 00:23:46 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:42454) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QQXXU-0004TV-Nh for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 29 May 2011 00:23:45 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QQXXT-0000aZ-Lu for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 29 May 2011 00:23:44 -0400 Original-Received: from lo.gmane.org ([80.91.229.12]:35471) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QQXXT-0000aS-Dj for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 29 May 2011 00:23:43 -0400 Original-Received: from list by lo.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1QQXXR-0002eT-Hk for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 29 May 2011 06:23:41 +0200 Original-Received: from 123.114.55.92 ([123.114.55.92]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sun, 29 May 2011 06:23:41 +0200 Original-Received: from sdl.web by 123.114.55.92 with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sun, 29 May 2011 06:23:41 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Original-Lines: 26 Original-X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 123.114.55.92 Face: iVBORw0KGgoAAAANSUhEUgAAACgAAAAoBAMAAAB+0KVeAAAAGFBMVEUzRVhbQj4eZqO6SjnT eWpxnMetm5b6/PmidmqrAAAAAWJLR0QAiAUdSAAAAAlwSFlzAAALEwAACxMBAJqcGAAAAAd0SU1F B9cBBwMLBfKABCMAAAFoSURBVCjPtZI9a8MwEIaFoc7aYDdelQMna0Em3tsSr0XUeE2Q6a22a+v+ fk8fSSBkbDUI6dHpfe9OEvRgiD+ApqKPJgJeB6iUUXWESjUe/ig38AJrhqqvaU2nTIXbNvOQ40fe qdry4kyGoVWsfCQalXpHnJGM01wjWdYbMlXNFdsZDO69m9aqNqxEJqTEgbM5OF7wlEfIoll1Ked4 LbM5X2EdILLokEdmI8z7g5cKED0cuTC930TYhy7ZDekkXVGw/L60TguJePPxcJF48lpsSUWEA/Ju jGFNgJOXc4Hz7TmAdBeu5Ve4AEjOi2/2jfd3cAJZ+IbNrvdjgBZY01b+HTuG3cLws6BJZqVOj/pp T0OqVwx3rFq+QmJwx3loK5JSLEhDIt62+mtC2C+SrAUxEbV6C6v2BRbd6pILBKFpepKZJHgGgrKF sptSUUoczpwg2pQ7ZH1tgs0ou/917mzz6Cs2//C978cv5l07L02orIEAAAAASUVORK5CYII= User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.3.50 (Mac OS X 10.6.7) Cancel-Lock: sha1:qQiSkQPxOrnN9QOZA4uaTLVqp6M= X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) X-Received-From: 80.91.229.12 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:139864 Archived-At: On 2011-05-28 11:58 +0800, Paul Eggert wrote: > Sounds good, but rather than continue to add crypto functions > wouldn't it be better to have a single function parameterized by the > algorithm name? Something like the following signature: > > (crypto-hash-function ALGORITHM OBJECT > &optional START END CODING-SYSTEM NOERROR BINARY) I like this too. > Then, we could implement the existing functions this way: > > (defun md5 (object &optional start end coding-system noerror) > (crypto-hash-function 'md5 object start end coding-system noerror nil)) > > (define sha1 (object &optional start end binary) > (crypto-hash-function 'sha1 object start end nil nil binary)) I think we should have a consistent signature for all these functions. I propose: (OBJECT &optional START END CODING-SYSTEM BINARY) omitting the NOERROR arg to make the functions easier to call. Leo