Blair Zajac blair@orcaware.com writes:
cmpilato@collab.net wrote:
Karl Fogel kfogel@newton.ch.collab.net writes:
Perhaps the bigger question is whether to somehow fix the apr_md5_*
API to take char*'s instead? I'm sort of on the fence here. Before
starting what will most likely be a painful discussion on dev@apr,
I'd like to see what you guys (namely Karl since he wrote most of the
checksum code that uses MD5) think first. What makes more sense?
I have to admit, it makes more sense to me to fix APR. I mean, most
callers are probably passing signed 'char *' data. If APR's md5 code
internally needs to treat it as unsigned, for the purpose of the
digest update algorith, it should just cast.
I disagree. This is a collection of bytes, treated as bytes, not as
characters. I believe APR's typing choice to be a) more accurate, and
b) more revealing about the usage for the data. 'char *' looks like
something that's human-readable -- these digest are not.
Why not use void * then?
Why bother? 'unsigned char' is, as far as I know, the way to
represent 8 bits of data. This has been the case in every piece of
software I've ever worked on.
You wanna change APR? Then make the interface return apr_byte_t *
(which is, of course, unsigned char *).
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Sat Oct 14 02:04:42 2006