[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4E14328A.4060803@bredband.net>
Date: Wed, 06 Jul 2011 12:01:46 +0200
From: magnum <rawsmooth@...dband.net>
To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: prepare() vs. split()
On 2011-07-06 05:22, Solar Designer wrote:
> In this case, though, don't we actually want valid() to accept either
> syntax? That's how things were done e.g. for LM accepting both full
> hashes with no tags and half-hashes with $LM$ tags.
But then we need to modify binary() too. I prefer prepare() for the
least intrusive change. BUT before doing this anywhere I think we should
establish the reason for those parens being there in the first place!
Maybe Vasiliy actually got them with parens and mistakenly removed them?
magnum
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
