Re: [Firebird-devel] HASH function (CORE-4436)

[Mark R. <ma...@la...>]

On 2017-07-19 18:57, Dmitry Yemanov wrote:
> 19.07.2017 17:44, Leyne, Sean wrote:
>> 
>> Why do we need to extend the current function?
>> 
>> Why not create separate, built-in, functions for each hash type with 
>> names* that align with the common algorithm name?
>> 
>> MD2()
>> ...
>> MD5()
>> SHA0()
>> SHA1()
>> SHA_224()
>> ...
>> SHA512_256()
>> ...
>> SHA3_224()
>> ...
>> SHA3_512()
> 
> Too many new keywords to be reserved.

Couldn't we get away with making these types of functions not reserved 
words? For example making them behave as normal functions?

> 
>> (would save needing to look at documentation to determine the 
>> supported algorithms)?
> 
> HASH(X USING MD5) is self-documentary as well.

Yes, it does improve readability.

BTW: can I assume the hash functions will be binary (use OCTETS), and 
not hex encoded values?

Mark