Bump. Max ?
On 30 Aug 2013, at 13:52, Sven Van Caekenberghe <[email protected]> wrote: > On 30 Aug 2013, at 13:39, Marcus Denker <[email protected]> wrote: > >> 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 > > I want to wait for Max to respond/explain. > > But according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sha1 > > "SHA-1 produces a 160-bit (20-byte) hash value. A SHA-1 hash value is > typically expressed as a hexadecimal number, 40 digits long." > > The previous contract of returning a ByteArray of size 20 is more correct > than an Integer, although both are mathematically equivalent. It is also very > easy to send #hex to a ByteArray to get the most common human representation > of such a hash. > >>> 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 >>> >>> >> >
