Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
encoding/base32: Add RFC-compliant error handling and improve reliability #4641
encoding/base32: Add RFC-compliant error handling and improve reliability #4641
Changes from all commits
8c76162
b933877
7672ac9
f1f2ed3
93238db
e75a49f
8211a91
e7fb02a
88c0e62
490f527
c9c59ed
0d4c006
591dd87
8292509
5ce6990
3d25128
d6f4412
fe88c22
a4a1562
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
can
#no_bounds_check
can be used for this proc?There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
#no_bounds_check
can be used hereThere was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
#no_bounds_check
can be used hereThere was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I suppose this works fine, but I might be a bit more explicit about the values here:
Alternatively, you could use a LUT:
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks! Should we not keep the explicit mapping as it directly documents the relationship between character count and required padding (e.g., "2 chars need 6 padding chars"). Using
8 - mod8
or a LUT would obscure this relationship by hiding the actual padding requirements behind a formula or indirect mapping. The current form makes the RFC requirements more apparent.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I haven't read this particular RFC, so I'll defer to you on that. But to me at least, 6, 4, 3 and 1 felt like magic numbers, even though they were clearly derived from
8 - mod8
, so the8 - mod8
felt more explicit than "these are the magic numbers". If you follow my train of thought.But that could be added to the comments instead?