On 2012-06-25 12:24, Piotr Szturmaj wrote:
Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Monday, June 25, 2012 11:35:33 Johannes Pfau wrote:
OK, so I understand std.util is probably not a good idea.
So the candidates for the namespace are:
* std.crypto.hash
* std.checksum
* std.crypto.hash and std.checksum
* std.hash
and the same with hash replaced by digest.
So which one should we use?
The previous discussions on this resulted in us going with std.hash.md5,
std.hash.sha1, and std.hash.crc32. I don't see any reason to change
that, and
crypto was specifically _not_ chosen, because crc32 isn't
cryptographically
sound. But std.hash encompasses things quite nicely, since they're all
hashes.
IMHO crypto should be chosen because beside of hashes there are other
cryptographic primitives (ciphers, PKI, MACs, etc.) and it would be nice
to have them in one place. std.hash is too narrow because when std gets
crypto there will be too many namespaces like std.ciphers, std.ssl,
std.mac. All of them will nicely fit in std.crypto or similar.
As you can see crypto isn't good candidate for checksums so another
package std.checksum is proposed. Likewise mixing checksums and
cryptographic hashes under one namespace (std.hash) isn't a right choice
IMO.
Having cryptographic primitives splitted to std.hash and std.crypto.*
isn't a good choice either.
Can't we have two namespaces, one for checksums and one for the rest. Or
one for cryptographically safe primitives and one for the rest.
Is there a general enough name to fit all these into one namespace?
--
/Jacob Carlborg
