Am Tue, 07 Aug 2012 20:46:44 +0200 schrieb deadalnix <deadal...@gmail.com>:
> You'll find very hard to convince anyone that crc32 is a > cryptographic hash function. And there will hopefully be more hashes in std.hash a some point. BTW: I also considered splitting hashes into cryptographic and non-cryptographic/checksums. But as we also have some generic parts (currently in std.hash.hash) this would pose the question where to put the generic part? Put it in std.checksum and std.crypto users will complain, put it in std.crypto and std.checksum users won't be happy. And as was discussed previously what's considered a safe cryptographic hash might change as time goes by. > And this API is suited for both cryptographic hash and regular hash. > Many of them can be added in the future if need is met. I > definitively am for std.hash . We had this package name discussion a few times on the newsgroup and I think on github as well. I personally don't care about the package name and I'll just choose what the majority thinks is best. Last time it seemed std.hash was the favorite (although hash and digest can probably be used interchangeably)
