[rb-general] rb formalism
hash at exultant.us
Tue Dec 18 15:44:20 CET 2018
On 12/18/18 1:44 PM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> Eric Myhre wrote on Tue, 18 Dec 2018 11:48 +0100:
>> h(➡) → h(■) vs
>> h(➡) → h(➡■) --
> What is the argument to the last of these h()'s?
> I get that h() is a cryptographic hash function, that ➡ is a callable
> function and actual parameters for it (which can be evaluated to produce
> some sort of output), and that ■ is an actual parameter. All that makes
> perfect sense. The part I don't understand is what the juxtaposition
> "➡■" means. Does it mean to hash the 2-tuple (➡,■)?
Yes, hash the 2-tuple (➡,■) is a perfectly valid interpretation.
I think it's fairly open to interpretation. Implementing it as h(h(➡),■) would be more or less the same semantics, no?
More information about the rb-general