You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
In the pull request #55068 it turned out that the package hash must not depend on encoding/binary.
In my opinion, if this was allowed, the code would be cleaner (I recommend to see the proposed changes in the PR) and the practical difference would not be much, since encoding/binary has little code in it that does what is needed.
Furthermore, this package is already used as a replacement for the append/put uint32/64 functions in the crypto package.
I therefore propose to allow the use of encoding/binary also in the hash package and avoid code duplication.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
This proposal has been added to the active column of the proposals project
and will now be reviewed at the weekly proposal review meetings.
— rsc for the proposal review group
In the pull request #55068 it turned out that the package hash must not depend on encoding/binary.
In my opinion, if this was allowed, the code would be cleaner (I recommend to see the proposed changes in the PR) and the practical difference would not be much, since encoding/binary has little code in it that does what is needed.
Furthermore, this package is already used as a replacement for the append/put uint32/64 functions in the crypto package.
I therefore propose to allow the use of encoding/binary also in the hash package and avoid code duplication.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: