On Mon, Feb 18, 2002 at 05:20:14PM +0000, David Rush wrote:
> Bengt Kleberg <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> > since most cryptographical
> > algorithms use not integers, but arrays of bytes,
> This opens up another whole can of worms, since Scheme doesn't have
> bytes. This is one of my pet peeves. I'm not terribly sure that going
> down this road is a good idea.
> > perhaps a list (of specified length), with integers 0-255 as items,
> > would be the most versatile value of such a procedure.
> Except that you can already generate range-limited integers, so I
> think there's no real loss here.
Good point. An implementation could convert a large random integer into
a stream of bytes for this sort of application.