5
$\begingroup$

We have , and , but and .

Could we rename them to match the canonical SHA-N form that the specifications use?

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ That indeed seems to make sense… especially, since those “sha256”-alike types could be made into tag-synonyms to be sure no one gets lost along the way. (Btw.: hope you don’t mind the minor tag-edit.) $\endgroup$ – e-sushi Jul 7 '14 at 21:05
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Yes, synonyms would definitely make sense. $\endgroup$ – otus Jul 9 '14 at 19:34
  • $\begingroup$ I would disagree; SHA256 and SHA512 are two different hash functions; I'm not certain if lumping them together into a SHA2 category is necessarily the Right Thing. $\endgroup$ – poncho Jul 19 '14 at 1:10
  • $\begingroup$ @poncho, I just meant renaming SHA256 -> SHA-256 (making the former a synonym as e-sushi mentioned). $\endgroup$ – otus Jul 19 '14 at 12:13
  • $\begingroup$ Oh, "never mind"... $\endgroup$ – poncho Jul 19 '14 at 14:17
  • $\begingroup$ @poncho The amount of time that the difference really matters would be minimal, and it's unlikely that any question that does discuss the difference cannot be found because they are "lumped together". Tags are for aggregating (and empathizing), not separating; tags don't have to catch all meaning. $\endgroup$ – Maarten Bodewes Jul 20 '14 at 15:06
4
$\begingroup$

I renamed them as and and created synonyms for and . I also changed to and created the synonym.

Did I miss any?

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Looks like you’ve catched them all. ;) $\endgroup$ – e-sushi Jul 25 '14 at 17:52
  • $\begingroup$ Looking good, I think $\endgroup$ – otus Jul 25 '14 at 23:40

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .