Hi Sorry, I was on holidays and didn't see this.
On 23.09.2013, at 20:45, Sven Van Caekenberghe <s...@stfx.eu> wrote: > https://pharo.fogbugz.com/f/cases/11664/SHA1-hashStream-should-return-a-ByteArray-of-size-20 > > with slice > > On 13 Sep 2013, at 15:38, Sven Van Caekenberghe <s...@stfx.eu> wrote: > >> Bump. >> >> Max ? >> >> On 30 Aug 2013, at 13:52, Sven Van Caekenberghe <s...@stfx.eu> wrote: >> >>> On 30 Aug 2013, at 13:39, Marcus Denker <marcus.den...@inria.fr> wrote: >>> >>>> On Aug 30, 2013, at 1:35 PM, Esteban Lorenzano <esteba...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> I'm not aware of such a change... >>>>> this is probably an error/side effect of something else. >>>>> >>>> This is a side effect of the merging of the two nearly identical but >>>> duplicated SHA1 implementations in the image… Yes that's true. Those two classes were nearly identical. I resolved differences by using the latest method versions of differing methods. Therefore it might well be that I changed that method to the way it is today because the current version is the one with the younger timestamp (I think the changes all came from Stef). Cheers, Max >>>> >>>> https://pharo.fogbugz.com/f/cases/5469/SHA1-duplicated-implementations >>> >>> I want to wait for Max to respond/explain. >>> >>> But according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sha1 >>> >>> "SHA-1 produces a 160-bit (20-byte) hash value. A SHA-1 hash value is >>> typically expressed as a hexadecimal number, 40 digits long." >>> >>> The previous contract of returning a ByteArray of size 20 is more correct >>> than an Integer, although both are mathematically equivalent. It is also >>> very easy to send #hex to a ByteArray to get the most common human >>> representation of such a hash. >>> >>>>> Esteban >>>>> >>>>> On Aug 29, 2013, at 3:05 PM, Sven Van Caekenberghe <s...@stfx.eu> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Max, >>>>>> >>>>>> Why was the contract of SHA1>>hashStream: changed ? >>>>>> >>>>>> It used to return a ByteArray like other HashFunction subclasses, now it >>>>>> returns an Integer. I see that you also changed the tests with this >>>>>> assumption. >>>>>> >>>>>> MD5 hashMessage: 'foo'. >>>>>> >>>>>> #[172 189 24 219 76 194 248 92 237 239 101 79 204 196 164 216] >>>>>> >>>>>> SHA1 hashMessage: 'foo'. >>>>>> >>>>>> 68123873083688143418383284816464454849230703155 >>>>>> >>>>>> It broke Zinc-WebSockets in 3.0 and now I will have to do an ugly hack >>>>>> to make the code work on multiple Pharo versions. >>>>>> >>>>>> Can you please explain ? >>>>>> >>>>>> Sven >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> > >
