On 2017-07-19 18:57, Dmitry Yemanov wrote:
19.07.2017 17:44, Leyne, Sean wrote:
Why do we need to extend the current function?
Why not create separate, built-in, functions for each hash type with
names* that align with the common algorithm name?
MD2()
...
MD5()
SHA0()
SHA1()
SHA_224()
...
SHA512_256()
...
SHA3_224()
...
SHA3_512()
Too many new keywords to be reserved.
Couldn't we get away with making these types of functions not reserved
words? For example making them behave as normal functions?
(would save needing to look at documentation to determine the
supported algorithms)?
HASH(X USING MD5) is self-documentary as well.
Yes, it does improve readability.
BTW: can I assume the hash functions will be binary (use OCTETS), and
not hex encoded values?
Mark
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
Firebird-Devel mailing list, web interface at
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/firebird-devel
