Make raw constructors of field elements private #90
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
cronokirby
force-pushed
the
more-private-api
branch
from
66ddc3f
to
69748f8
Compare
The rationale here is that we only want the existing methods of constructing field elements, including from bytes. There's an argument in favor of adding a constructor which takes in 64 bit limbs and reduces mod order, but that doesn't strike me as particularly necessary.
cronokirby
force-pushed
the
more-private-api
branch
from
69748f8
to
f0aa719
Compare
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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 rationale here is that we only want the existing methods of constructing field elements, including from bytes.
There's an argument in favor of adding a constructor which takes in 64 bit limbs and reduces mod order, but that doesn't strike me as particularly necessary.