Sorry, that I have to disappoint you, but I won't tocuh this kind of thing in my fork. I do think that SecByteBlock is easy to use and hence I believe that it'll break more than help if I would change anything there. I'll concentrate my time on implementing new (requested/needed) algorithms (Threefish/Skein/BLAKE2/Fortuna/...) and not on the core.
BR JPM Am Sonntag, 1. März 2015 14:40:53 UTC+1 schrieb Ilya Bizyaev: > > Finished writing and debugging the code for writing and reading the > header! I'm already happy! \_(^_^)_/ > By the way, ALL the problems I solved were issues with using > SecByteBlocks!!! I now that Jean-Pierre Münch is writing a fork for > Cryptopp... hope he would make SecBlocks easier to use and more stable! > Now I should re-implement the very file encryption and optimise what I've > already rewritten. I'll keep your informed about the development (^_~) > -- -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the "Crypto++ Users" Google Group. To unsubscribe, send an email to [email protected]. More information about Crypto++ and this group is available at http://www.cryptopp.com. --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Crypto++ Users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
