That's a good suggestion. Yes, that will be smoother.
> On Jun 30, 2017, at 10:31 AM, Philip McGrath wrote:
>
> If it doesn't absolutely have to be a hash, you can definitely make dict-ref
> and dict-iterate-key etc. work differently.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed t
If it doesn't absolutely have to be a hash, you can definitely
make dict-ref and dict-iterate-key etc. work differently.
-Philip
On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 12:15 PM, Matthew Butterick wrote:
>
> > On Jun 30, 2017, at 10:07 AM, Robby Findler
> wrote:
> >
> > Maybe you could make the impersonator (
> On Jun 30, 2017, at 10:07 AM, Robby Findler
> wrote:
>
> Maybe you could make the impersonator (it would be a chaperone, really
> in what I'm suggesting) signal an error if it gets one of the private
> keys and then hand out only the hashes with the impersonator around
> it, keeping the "raw"
Maybe you could make the impersonator (it would be a chaperone, really
in what I'm suggesting) signal an error if it gets one of the private
keys and then hand out only the hashes with the impersonator around
it, keeping the "raw" one around for code that is allowed to access
the private keys?
Rob
4 matches
Mail list logo
