On 01/08/2012 04:12 AM, Aristid Breitkreuz wrote:
Why? I don't actually need the hash object for anything, usually. All
I need is the ByteString, and then I need to learn how to use the
cereal package to get it...
The whole rationale i believe, is having meaningful types associated to your
To use the hash, I have to convert it to a ByteString, and then I
suddenly have lost all this safety. I don't really see how there is
any real safety gained.
That said, just exposing a direct method of getting to that ByteString
without cereal (as Thomas proposed) would be an improvement.
On 01/08/2012 02:35 PM, Aristid Breitkreuz wrote:
To use the hash, I have to convert it to a ByteString, and then I
suddenly have lost all this safety. I don't really see how there is
any real safety gained.
Using the hash and carrying it around are two different things. You don't get
any
Aristid Breitkreuz arist...@googlemail.com wrote:
To use the hash, I have to convert it to a ByteString, and then I
suddenly have lost all this safety. I don't really see how there is
any real safety gained.
But that isn't true for all users. Sometimes a hash is computed long
before it is
great!
I am wondering if you can provide even higher-level APIs for the common
case:
hash - runResourceT $ hashFile my-file
and possibly something that runs the ResourceT transformer:
hash - runHashFile my-file
On Sat, Jan 7, 2012 at 12:16 AM, Felipe Almeida Lessa
felipe.le...@gmail.com
On Sat, Jan 7, 2012 at 8:06 AM, Greg Weber g...@gregweber.info wrote:
I am wondering if you can provide even higher-level APIs for the common
case:
hash - runResourceT $ hashFile my-file
and possibly something that runs the ResourceT transformer:
hash - runHashFile my-file
That's dead
And while we're at it, some code to deal with the cumbersome decoding of
those hash objects would be nice!
Cheers,
Aristid
Am 07.01.2012 11:07 schrieb Greg Weber g...@gregweber.info:
great!
I am wondering if you can provide even higher-level APIs for the common
case:
hash - runResourceT $
On Sat, Jan 7, 2012 at 9:12 AM, Aristid Breitkreuz
arist...@googlemail.com wrote:
And while we're at it, some code to deal with the cumbersome decoding of
those hash objects would be nice!
I'm sorry, but what do you mean by cumbersome decoding?
Cheers, =)
--
Felipe.
Well, how do you get a ByteString from the hash object?
Aristid
Am 07.01.2012 13:04 schrieb Felipe Almeida Lessa felipe.le...@gmail.com:
On Sat, Jan 7, 2012 at 9:12 AM, Aristid Breitkreuz
arist...@googlemail.com wrote:
And while we're at it, some code to deal with the cumbersome decoding of
On Sat, Jan 7, 2012 at 12:16 PM, Aristid Breitkreuz
arist...@googlemail.com wrote:
Well, how do you get a ByteString from the hash object?
Just use encode from Data.Serialize. =)
Cheers,
--
Felipe.
___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Yeah and that's annoying IMHO. :)
It's not really important though.
Aristid
Am 07.01.2012 15:39 schrieb Felipe Almeida Lessa felipe.le...@gmail.com:
___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
On 01/07/2012 04:21 PM, Aristid Breitkreuz wrote:
Yeah and that's annoying IMHO. :)
It's not really important though.
What would you prefer ?
At the moment, i'm inclined to someday move cryptohash apis to be similar to
crypto-api. i.e. from a result type being a bytestring to an opaque
2012/1/8 Vincent Hanquez t...@snarc.org:
What would you prefer ?
At the moment, i'm inclined to someday move cryptohash apis to be similar to
crypto-api. i.e. from a result type being a bytestring to an opaque type
with serialize/show instance.
Why? I don't actually need the hash object for
On Sat, Jan 7, 2012 at 10:12 PM, Aristid Breitkreuz
arist...@googlemail.com wrote:
2012/1/8 Vincent Hanquez t...@snarc.org:
What would you prefer ?
At the moment, i'm inclined to someday move cryptohash apis to be similar to
crypto-api. i.e. from a result type being a bytestring to an opaque
Why? I don't actually need the hash object for anything, usually. All
I need is the ByteString, and then I need to learn how to use the
cereal package to get it...
What would you think if Crypto.Classes exported Data.Serialize.encode?
Or how about if it exported Antoine's hash suggestion
On Sun, Jan 8, 2012 at 12:39 AM, Thomas DuBuisson
thomas.dubuis...@gmail.com wrote:
Why? I don't actually need the hash object for anything, usually. All
I need is the ByteString, and then I need to learn how to use the
cereal package to get it...
What would you think if Crypto.Classes
16 matches
Mail list logo
