Re: md5 and sha1 signatures

[Tassilo Horn]

Stefan Monnier <address@hidden> writes:

>> Since there is only one user of sha1's BINARY arg namely canlock-sha1
>> in the source tree, I wonder if it is worthwhile to make md5 and sha1
>> have similar signature:
>
>>  (md5  OBJECT &optional START END CODING-SYSTEM NOERROR BINARY)
>>  (sha1 OBJECT &optional START END CODING-SYSTEM NOERROR BINARY)
>
>> What do you think?
>
> I don't think it's worth the trouble.

Where's the big trouble, if there's only one user right now?

At least, all the command line tools `md5sum', `sha1sum', `sha224sum',
`sha256sum', `sha384sum', and `sha512sum' have the exact same options
and meanings.  So I don't see a valid reason to have different lisp
signatures, especially if there's a chance that other algorithms might
be added in the future.

Bye,
Tassilo