As an aside, the most common use of the encoding/asn1 package is most likely crypto/x509. x509. Certificate exposes public fields that use the asn1.ObjectIdentifier, so asn1 ends up being exposed in a lot of applications, such as for TLS connection management.
On Friday, June 26, 2020 at 12:04:09 PM UTC-7, Sebastien Rosset wrote: > > sure, thank you. I will go through the PR review process for asn1 and > x509, maybe some good ideas will come up. > Sebastien > > On Friday, June 26, 2020 at 11:51:05 AM UTC-7, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: >> >> On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 11:03 AM Sebastien Rosset <sro...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> > >> > @ianlancetaylor , thank you for the quick reply. The reason I was >> asking is because potentially this could have been used to fix `type >> ObjectIdentifier []int` in the `encoding/asn1` package and the >> `crypto/x509` package. Currently these package are not fully compliant with >> the ASN.1 specification, which means in practice some certificates cannot >> be parsed. >> > >> > >> > I am trying to fix the encoding/asn1 and crypto/x509 package by adding >> support for OID values that are greater than 2^31. There are multiple ways >> to fix the issues, and unfortunately it won't be possible to simply change >> the ObjectIdentifier type because that would break too many applications. >> If it's not possible to change the type, then most alternatives seem to be >> somewhat cumbersome. For reference the PR is >> https://github.com/golang/go/pull/39795. >> >> Thanks, understood. >> >> Generics don't solve all problems. I agree that there seems to be a >> way that we could modify generics to solve this particular problem. >> But it means introducing an idea that the rest of the language has >> decided to reject: default values for arguments. I don't think it >> would be consistent with the language to permit default values for >> type arguments when we do not permit default values for non-type >> arguments. While we don't have to be strictly consistent here, I >> think we need a good reason to break consistency. And in the larger >> scheme of things I don't think that making it easier to make a >> backward compatible change to one specific package, a package that is >> not all that widely used, is a good enough reason. >> >> I'm not claiming to have the final word, but that is my opinion. >> >> Ian >> > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "golang-nuts" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to golang-nuts+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/golang-nuts/a34c936f-b68e-4f63-aad2-47c0869f71e0o%40googlegroups.com.
