On Tue, 19 May 2020 at 11:44, Eliot Lear wrote:
> Dan, thanks. Please see below.
>
> On 18.05.20 13:49, Dan Ackroyd wrote:
> >> Returns TRUE on success and FALSE on failure.
> > Have you considered using an exception for failures?
> >
> > First, having a cryptographic function fail is bad enough
Dan, thanks. Please see below.
On 18.05.20 13:49, Dan Ackroyd wrote:
> On Mon, 18 May 2020 at 10:55, Eliot Lear wrote:
>> there is an open question as
>> to whether it should be an RFC
> I don't think it should be.
>
> The questions and problems related to cryptography are far too
> detailed for
En mar, 19 may 2020 08:53:46 +0200 Manuel Canga
escribió
>
> Hi, Internals,
>
>
>
> En dom, 17 may 2020 06:33:51 +0200 Peter Stalman
> escribió
> > A few thoughts:
> >
> >
> > 1. I agree with the sentiment that this syntactic sugar doesn't
> >
