Reorder the parameters of miniz checksum APIs #322
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
The documentation has this inverted, presumably because it was the more intuitive order. I understand that checksums are "objects" internally and so passing it as the first parameter might make sense from a technical perspective, but as a user of the API it's confusing. The most common use case is "give me the checksum of this string", and optimizing for the common case means moving the IV so that it feels more optional than the actual input - even if, technically speaking, both are optional (as per the code).
Duckwhale
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 10, 2023
Reorder the parameters of miniz checksum APIs
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
The documentation has this inverted, presumably because it was the more intuitive order. I understand that checksums are "objects" internally and so passing it as the first parameter might make sense from a technical perspective, but as a user of the API it's confusing.
The most common use case is "give me the checksum of this string", and optimizing for the common case means moving the IV so that it feels more optional than the actual input - even if, technically speaking, both are optional (as per the code).