hash function bounds summarized
Alex Shinn
(25 Nov 2015 23:16 UTC)
|
Re: hash function bounds summarized
taylanbayirli@xxxxxx
(26 Nov 2015 09:30 UTC)
|
Re: hash function bounds summarized John Cowan (27 Nov 2015 08:01 UTC)
|
Re: hash function bounds summarized
Alex Shinn
(30 Nov 2015 23:38 UTC)
|
Re: hash function bounds summarized
John Cowan
(30 Nov 2015 04:26 UTC)
|
Re: hash function bounds summarized
Shiro Kawai
(30 Nov 2015 04:52 UTC)
|
Re: hash function bounds summarized
Alex Shinn
(30 Nov 2015 23:45 UTC)
|
Re: hash function bounds summarized
Alex Shinn
(30 Nov 2015 23:23 UTC)
|
Re: hash function bounds summarized John Cowan 27 Nov 2015 08:01 UTC
Taylan Ulrich Bayırlı/Kammer scripsit: > Would this work? Am I missing something? I think that's fine, and I am adopting the same view for SRFI 125/128. I add a warning that if you expect your hash functions to interoperate with the reference implementation of SRFI 69, you should write them to accept and ignore a second argument. At the moment, however, I am still sticking to the requirement for non-negativity, since it is in both SRFI 69 and R5RS, even if it is not necessary. -- John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan xxxxxx@ccil.org Even a refrigerator can conform to the XML Infoset, as long as it has a door sticker saying "No information items inside". --Eve Maler