On Thu, Dec 5, 2024 at 12:06 PM Vinnie Falco
...Instead of writing:
h.update( span );
You instead write:
boost::hash2::update( h, span );
Anyway it looks like this wasn't clear so I guess I'll try again and be even more explicit. Currently, the hash algorithm provides the following member function for sending a contiguous range of binary data: void update( void const*, std::size_t ); The combination of pointer and size passed as individual arguments is triggering to certain folks, who instead prefer the following, or some variation of it (for example, using uint8_t instead of byte) void update( std::span< std::byte const > ); This is disfavored by the library author (and myself) for reasons already posted to the mailing list which I will not repeat. Yet an argument can be made that the use of a span could be favorable to tooling which performs buffer safety analysis. Thus I propose to add the following additional free function. Doing so allows authors of hash functions to call the free function with a span instead of the update member function which accepts a pointer and size, without burdening the authors of hash algorithms: namespace boost::hash2 { template< typename Hasher > void update( Hasher& h, std::span< std::byte const > s ) { h.update( s.data(), s.size() ); } } I have to stress that this is not the same as the hash_append function which by coincidence has an identical signature (and different implementation). This is the alternative to: 1. changing the signature of update in the Hasher concept, or 2. adding an overload of update to the Hasher concept (both of these are disfavored for reasons already given). Thanks