Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2011 14:12:36 +0400 From: Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com> To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com 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. Thanks, Alexander
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.