On Tue, 2004-06-29 at 02:25, Raymond Hettinger wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jun 29, 2004 at 04:10:22PM +0100, Armin Rigo wrote:
> > > > We may consider whether adding, over time, a bunch of modules
> named
> > shaXXX
> > > > doesn't mean we should start thinking about a way to group all
> these
> > > > algorithms into a single module.
> > >
> > > It would be possible to change the signature of sha.new() to
> > > sha.new('string', bits=256) and have all the variants in one module,
> > > if we want SHA-256 but not a separate module.
> >
> > That seems like a very nice solution to me.
>
> +1
BTW, would it raise an exception (ValueError?) for bit sizes it doesn't
know about?
-Barry
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 307 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/attachments/20040629/74651a99/attachment-0001.bin
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4