On 19/07/2017 11:44, Leyne, Sean wrote: > >>> We need to decide whether the algorithm name can be passed dynamically >>> (and thus be presented as "value" in the grammar) or must be >>> predefined (via a string literal or maybe token). The latter gives us >>> more flexibility regarding the result type. >> This is an interesting idea. >> >> We can use special syntax (like some others system functions): >> >> HASH( <value> [WITH <algorithm>] ) > 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? > Because "HASH" is an excellent namespace/container for hash functions.
Adriano ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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
