Re: Adding sha256 and sha512 to C?

[Juanma Barranquero]

On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 18:02, Paul Eggert <address@hidden> wrote:

> The advantage of this approach is that we don't pollute
> the Lisp namespace with one function name per algorithm.

I think generalization is a good argument, but "don't pollute the
namespace" is not. Interesting, widely used cryptographically secure
hash functions (which, I suppose, are the target of
crypto-hash-function) are introduced at a rate of one every X years, X
>> 1. (md5 is from 1992, sha-1 is from 1995, sha-2 is from 2001).

 I'm pretty sure we "pollute the namespace" with all kind of functiosn
at a rate several orders of magnitude bigger than that ;-)

    Juanma