> That old form is kept for backward compatibility. If your suggestion comes
> true
> (hope not) some idiot may try to use PJW as cryptographic hash.
>
> To summarize - I withdraw my initial agreement to add CRC32 calculation to
> function HASH(). The only argument for this is same name in plain english for
> different purpose things.
I believe that many of you are all too narrowly linking HASH and whether it is
appropriate for cryptography.
Further, you are not considering how the developer/user would want to use the
output.
I believe that:
1- While strictly speaking, CRC32 is not a "hash", it is commonly thought of as
one.
2- the general functions should be referred to as HASH_xxx. The fact that the
usage is appropriate for cryptography is something the developer/user needs to
worry about. A HASH is a HASH is a HASH.
3- That there should be separate 'implementations' for the different datatype
that is returned: Hex (i.e. String/varchar) and Integer (Octal?).
Eg. HASH_ToHex, or HASH_AsInteger
Sean
>
>
>
>
> Firebird-Devel mailing list, web interface at
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/firebird-devel
Firebird-Devel mailing list, web interface at
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/firebird-devel
