Loading... |
Reply to author |
Edit post |
Move post |
Delete this post |
Delete this post and replies |
Change post date |
Print post |
Permalink |
Raw mail |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
4138 posts
|
I do not know, if this is an error - but I notice that secureHashFor: is based on the byte representation of the used string: GRPlatform current secureHashFor: 'vorzimmer' = GRPlatform current secureHashFor: (Unicode16 withAll: 'vorzimmer' ) is false .... _______________________________________________ Glass mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.gemtalksystems.com/mailman/listinfo/glass |
Loading... |
Reply to author |
Edit post |
Move post |
Delete this post |
Delete this post and replies |
Change post date |
Print post |
Permalink |
Raw mail |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
4138 posts
|
Marten,
this should be true on any platform. The hash is computed on a string of bit octets, IOW, binary values. The default encoding is probably going to be UTF-8, so the binary representation of the two string will be different, and therefore the hash. I don’t see any way around it other than forcing the default encoding to be UTF-16 which I don’t know how Grease handles in GLASS. Jerry Kott This message has been digitally signed. PGP Fingerprint: A9181736DD2F1B6CC7CF9E51AC8514F48C0979A5
... [show rest of quote] _______________________________________________ Glass mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.gemtalksystems.com/mailman/listinfo/glass |
Loading... |
Reply to author |
Edit post |
Move post |
Delete this post |
Delete this post and replies |
Change post date |
Print post |
Permalink |
Raw mail |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
4138 posts
|
On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 11:29 AM, Jerry Kott via Glass <[hidden email]> wrote:
I think one could make a valid argument that the code points should be the source of the bits. e.g. ASCII characters in a Unicode16 string would only have their ASCII code points used, not the internal representation bits.
... [show rest of quote] _______________________________________________ Glass mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.gemtalksystems.com/mailman/listinfo/glass |
Loading... |
Reply to author |
Edit post |
Move post |
Delete this post |
Delete this post and replies |
Change post date |
Print post |
Permalink |
Raw mail |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
4138 posts
|
Yes, but this should be made *very* clear in the documentation ... Marten
_______________________________________________ Glass mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.gemtalksystems.com/mailman/listinfo/glass |
Loading... |
Reply to author |
Edit post |
Move post |
Delete this post |
Delete this post and replies |
Change post date |
Print post |
Permalink |
Raw mail |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
4138 posts
|
On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 1:33 PM, Marten Feldtmann <[hidden email]> wrote:
I agree. In retrospect, it isn't surprising. It also is unlikely to be changed. The recommended way to do this is to convert the source "string" to UTF-8 and then compute the hash, secure digest, whatever. This is the way to ensure you get the same results from the Smalltalk image as you do from the operating system command line for the same string.
_______________________________________________ Glass mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.gemtalksystems.com/mailman/listinfo/glass |
Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |