On Aug 30, 2013, at 1:35 PM, Esteban Lorenzano <[email protected]> wrote:
> I'm not aware of such a change... > this is probably an error/side effect of something else. > This is a side effect of the merging of the two nearly identical but duplicated SHA1 implementations in the image… https://pharo.fogbugz.com/f/cases/5469/SHA1-duplicated-implementations > Esteban > > On Aug 29, 2013, at 3:05 PM, Sven Van Caekenberghe <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Max, >> >> Why was the contract of SHA1>>hashStream: changed ? >> >> It used to return a ByteArray like other HashFunction subclasses, now it >> returns an Integer. I see that you also changed the tests with this >> assumption. >> >> MD5 hashMessage: 'foo'. >> >> #[172 189 24 219 76 194 248 92 237 239 101 79 204 196 164 216] >> >> SHA1 hashMessage: 'foo'. >> >> 68123873083688143418383284816464454849230703155 >> >> It broke Zinc-WebSockets in 3.0 and now I will have to do an ugly hack to >> make the code work on multiple Pharo versions. >> >> Can you please explain ? >> >> Sven > >
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
