sn't gotten as much attention is
> simply time and priorities, having someone interested in driving
> improvements forward would likely be very welcome indeed.
>
> Paul
>
>
> On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 3:13 PM, Griffin Byatt <byatt.grif...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
&
hings upstream to OTP
> benefits everyone, even if its a slower process. I would try opening an
> issue there first, getting some discussion going, and if it fails to gain
> traction, reviving this thread to see what people think.
>
> Paul
>
>
> On Mon, May 14,
My concern with leaving it as a library is primarily that the onus is still
on the developer to figure out which library to choose, so it doesn't
really alleviate the issue. As it stands, developers already have
out-of-the-box crypto tools when they are using Elixir, but they aren't the
easiest or
I know the “wrap the Erlang module” proposals are not particularly
popular, and the general consensus is, “make it into a library if you want
it”. However, I think in this case it would be a useful addition to the
Elixir language. Here is my reasoning:
The Erlang crypto module is not
Also, to clarify:
My suggestion with `Crypto.encrypt/2` or `Crypto.sign/2` is that if that
naming isn't future-proof enough, more specific names like
`Crypto.auth_encrypt_cbc/2` could be used.
On Sunday, May 13, 2018 at 7:09:44 PM UTC-4, Griffin Byatt wrote:
>
> I know the “wrap the
r than just Elixir.
>
> Cheers,
> Louis
>
> On Mon, 14 May 2018, 00:09 Griffin Byatt, <byatt@gmail.com
> > wrote:
>
>> I know the “wrap the Erlang module” proposals are not particularly
>> popular, and the general consensus is, “make it into a library if
