[rb-general] rb formalism

Eric Myhre 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 (➡,■)?
> Thanks,
> Daniel

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 mailing list