Re: [RFC][VOTE] Improve hash_hkdf() parameter

Hi Ryan, On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 7:12 AM, Ryan Pallas <derokorian@gmail.com> wrote: > Dude, he doesnt have to provide anything. The proposal was turned down > unanimously. Why do you keep sending mail after mail on this? Also, try > sending one mail instead of many when replying. Also, consider that the > likelihood of changing minds is now far gone as continuing this thread > without modifying your stance just biases people more against it. Current hash_hkdf() signature is too easy to be misused, so I'm suggesting manual page improvement. It's may be better to discuss in new thread. Draft doc patch is here. https://gist.github.com/anonymous/ace4fa267f20041676f265fe58c3f1ea It's silly not to have example(s) that justify current hash_hdkf() signature, isn't it? Anydrey, I'm looking forward your example. Why are you taking so long to show example(s)? If you cannot think of any, you should admit your misunderstanding, shouldn't you? Regards, -- Yasuo Ohgaki yohgaki@ohgaki.net