On Sat, 2 Sep 2017, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
if we wanted to be really conservative, we'd leave the old meaning of the sha3 constants and introduce realSha3 (or something to that effect) instead, in 5.10+. keccak aliases would be also provided for a smooth migration.
Fwiw, I would have appreciated such a bug-compatible approach. For a new product we relied on the old SHA-3 to store hashes of data. That data is lost now. Luckily the losses were minimal and did not affect customers, yet.
On the other hand: having users rely on a buggy implementation without knowing (who reads API documentation for completed code?) has its downsides as well.
In that light, giving up the backward compatibility and changinging the Sha3_256 enum to intentionally breaking Sha3_256_Good+Sha3_256_Broken for the rest of Qt 5.x lifetime could have been an option, too....
Harri. _______________________________________________ Development mailing list [email protected] http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
