Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2011 14:12:36 +0400
From: Solar Designer <>
Subject: Re: prepare() vs. split()

magnum, Jim -

On Wed, Jul 06, 2011 at 12:01:46PM +0200, magnum wrote:
> On 2011-07-06 05:22, Solar Designer wrote:
> >In this case, though, don't we actually want valid() to accept either
> >syntax?  That's how things were done e.g. for LM accepting both full
> >hashes with no tags and half-hashes with $LM$ tags.
> But then we need to modify binary() too.

Not if we have split() translate to the current syntax.

> I prefer prepare() for the least intrusive change.

OK.  I still prefer split().

> BUT before doing this anywhere I think we should 
> establish the reason for those parens being there in the first place! 
> Maybe Vasiliy actually got them with parens and mistakenly removed them?

You're right - we need to find this out first.



Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.