On 09/27/2012 05:13 AM, Paul Eggert wrote:
> On 09/26/2012 09:40 AM, Jim Meyering wrote:
>> Yes, switching it to LGPLv2+ is fine with me.
> OK, thanks, I did that.
Thank you. Attached you'll find a patch to add hash_pjw_s() and a
different patch which returns the full number if requested in hash
Paul Eggert writes:
> On 09/26/2012 11:34 PM, Simon Josefsson wrote:
>> Is there any reason localename.c contains duplicated code instead of
>> depending on the hash-pjw module?
>
> Not that I know of, no.
>
> localename.c is not the only other .c file that has a copy, if memory serves.
clean-te
It might be better to not have the tablesize
arg, at least in a variant of the function.
On 09/26/2012 11:34 PM, Simon Josefsson wrote:
> Is there any reason localename.c contains duplicated code instead of
> depending on the hash-pjw module?
Not that I know of, no.
localename.c is not the only other .c file that has a copy, if memory serves.
On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 9:07 AM, Paul Eggert wrote:
> It might be better to not have the tablesize
> arg, at least in a variant of the function.
This would result to 4 functions instead:
1. the original hash_pjw()
2. hash_pjw_no_tablesize()
3. hash_pjw_s()
4. hash_pjw_s_no_tablesize()
We can eli
Maybe I do not understand something, but why it operates on const pointers?
So, if I store dynamically allocated objects, I want them to cleared,
but dispose_fn signature forces me to fight aganist library. Why?
--
Best regards, illusionoflife.
This mail is for mailing lists.
For private, responc
On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 12:12 PM, Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos
wrote:
> 4. hash_pjw_s_no_tablesize()
> We can eliminate (2), but still there are 3 variants of the same
> function. Maybe it is better to keep only (4) and (1) for backwards
> compatibility, and anybody who wants to do the % tablesize to d
Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 12:12 PM, Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos
> wrote:
>> 4. hash_pjw_s_no_tablesize()
>> We can eliminate (2), but still there are 3 variants of the same
>> function. Maybe it is better to keep only (4) and (1) for backwards
>> compatibility, and anybo
On 09/27/2012 08:55 PM, Jim Meyering wrote:
>> And having said that, here is that function.
> ...
>> Subject: [PATCH] Added hash-pjw-s.
> ...
> Hi Nikos,
> Thanks for working on this.
Updated.
regards,
Nikos
>From 14a0d1ac40de4fcd16dff605a0fdf86a8227520f Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Nikos Mav
