Hashing without relying on Qt?

[Richard Kimberly Heck]

On 10/18/21 20:37, Thibaut Cuvelier wrote:
> Thank you Pavel and Riki for your feedback!
>
> Here is a refactoring of this code. As a result, the execution should 
> be a tad slower: sanitizeFileName performs a copy of the string 
> (instead of mutating its argument), while the original version did 
> not, but it's only for file names, so it should not matter much 
> (especially as the calling code would not be too strange).
>
> Is the code OK to push as is?

Looks good to me.

Riki


>
> On Mon, 18 Oct 2021 at 15:33, Pavel Sanda <sanda at lyx.org> wrote:
>
>     On Sun, Oct 17, 2021 at 12:09:06AM -0400, Richard Kimberly Heck wrote:
>     > >The only solution I found without importing a large new
>     dependency into
>     > >LyX was to use Qt's QCryptographicHash, just like
>     support/FileName.cpp. I
>     > >know that LyX tries to have clear boundaries for dependencies,
>     that's why
>     > >I'm bringing the question to the list. Is the current solution
>     acceptable?
>     > >Maybe move some of the code to support/FileName.cpp?
>
>     QCryptographicHash in FileName.cpp is probably my doing and you
>     are right,
>     that it would be better to abstract qt hasing somewhere into
>     support and
>     then use it in FileName & Insettext.
>
>     Pavel
>     -- 
>     lyx-devel mailing list
>     lyx-devel at lists.lyx.org
>     http://lists.lyx.org/mailman/listinfo/lyx-devel
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.lyx.org/pipermail/lyx-devel/attachments/20211018/aa1d41bf/attachment-0001.html>