Sun He <> writes:

> hashcpy() can keep the abstraction of "object name" behind it.

Do we really want to change the phrasing you took the above from to
say "*can* keep"?

Providing the "object name" abstraction is the whole point of the
function, so of course it can keep it, but that goes without
saying---it was the sole reason why it was invented in the first

> Use it instead of memcpy() with hard-coded 20-byte length when
> moving object names between pieces of memory.
> We can benefit from it, when we switch to another hash algorithm,
> eg. MD5, by just fixing the hashcpy().

"fix" can be used in two scenarios, I think.  Something is broken
and you fix it, or something keeps changing and you force it not to
change.  I do not think either applies to hashcpy().  Perhaps
"updating", if we really wanted to say it, but because this change
is not about preparing us to any planned switch of hash function,
I'd suggest dropping those two lines starting from "We can benefit

> Leave ppc/sha1.c as it is, because the function is about the
> SHA-1 hash algorithm whose output is and will always be 20-byte.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at

Reply via email to