Alexander Grund wrote:
But you are currently defining the interface of the hash algorithms: constexpr void update( unsigned char const* data, std::size_t n ); My proposal is to define it as e.g. constexpr void update(span<unsigned char const>);
Which span is that, though?
I.e. to go range-safe from the start. That would not depend on the hash library but on the chosen span library, which might be more acceptable. However in C++11/14 this would require the Boost span, so I guess this is also off the table, unless the interface would be required to support span-likes which could be done by users via templates and not require a specific span implementation.
Even if we could assume C++20 and std::span, the interface taking std::span<unsigned char const> is inferior in usability to the current approach because it doesn't work well for ranges of `char` or `byte`.
But even with the current interface of "potentially unsafe" hash algorithms the `hash_append` could be written to accept only spans/ranges.
I'm not sure what this means. hash_append already accepts spans and ranges, and is type safe.