Viktor Szakáts wrote:
hmmm, really strange. In this case I won't add any SHA2 functions
to core in this fashion. Rather I'll keep it in hbcrypt() in binary form.
Or, if group agrees, we break with the HB_MD5 "habit" and these
new ones will use binary data by default.
Am I living a different world, or is it true, that in the majority of cases
checksums are meant to be printed for _users_? I would think these
cryptic numbers are most of the time embedded in some streams,
and a machine is dealing with them. Except when it's travelling in
a text file (.xml, .ini, and oh well .sfv).
To me the latter seems by far the rarest, but again I may be wrong.
But even if so, it's just a function call to convert vice and versa.
Anyhow it'd be nice the know what led to the current MD5
implementation.
Hi,
no problem for me. We can change it to binary (with or without lBinary)
parameter. I can accept any implementation here, but we should use the
same approach for all digest functions.
Best regards,
Mindaugas
P.S. I can always find an argument :) Python returns binary string:
md5.new("Nobody inspects the spammish repetition").digest()
_______________________________________________
Harbour mailing list
Harbour@harbour-project.org
http://lists.harbour-project.org/mailman/listinfo/harbour
