On Fri, 30 Nov 2001, ozan s. yigit wrote:

> nice interface. but.
>
> i would suggest that the results we so far have show that there are a
> number of good algorithms with relatively minor performance difference
> in simulated inputs; i am not sure the extra interface blubber for two
> *separate* hash functions is as strongly justified as one may like. this
> is not a caution against any of the choices [both of which are easy to
> comprehend, and seem to perform as well or better than FV+n, and have
> lower pomposity quotient], but against needless complication. i would
> be astonished if anyone could show that for any live production netbsd
> system on any architecture, the difference between these two relatively
> good functions actually gained us something beyond what would be seen
> as noise.

At least as I understood Luke's points, the reason for the two interfaces
is not that the underlying hashes are different (though they can be and
are), but that with one interface set you stop when you see a NUL (the str
ones) and the other you don't. It's like why we have strcpy() and
memcpy(). :-)

Take care,

Bill