[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110706101236.GA20996@openwall.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2011 14:12:36 +0400
From: Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com>
To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: prepare() vs. split()
magnum, Jim -
On Wed, Jul 06, 2011 at 12:01:46PM +0200, magnum wrote:
> 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.
Not if we have split() translate to the current syntax.
> I prefer prepare() for the least intrusive change.
OK. I still prefer split().
> 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?
You're right - we need to find this out first.
Thanks,
Alexander
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.
