On Sat, 2012-08-11 at 19:29 -0400, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: […] > I think (2) is a much more fertile view than (1) because the notion of > "reduce" emphasizes the accumulation operation (such as "+"), and that > is a forced notion for hashes (we're not really adding stuff there). In > contrast, the notion that the hash accumulator is a sink is very > natural: you just dump a lot of stuff into the accumulator, and then you > call finish and you get its digest.
One could also consider the hash generator to be a builder, which would support 2 rather than 1. -- Russel. ============================================================================= Dr Russel Winder t: +44 20 7585 2200 voip: sip:[email protected] 41 Buckmaster Road m: +44 7770 465 077 xmpp: [email protected] London SW11 1EN, UK w: www.russel.org.uk skype: russel_winder
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
