[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: Leading 0x on hash?
I agree. The 0x prefix is mostly to help differentiate literals in languages/contexts that provide for differing base (10, 16, 8) and not a convention associated with hash function outputs. -----Original Message----- From: James A. Kupsch <email@example.com> Sent: Monday, April 23, 2018 7:55 AM To: Larry Golding (Comcast) <firstname.lastname@example.org>; email@example.com; Michael Fanning <Michael.Fanning@microsoft.com> Subject: Re: Leading 0x on hash? I do not think that they should have a leading "0x". I have never seen a hash value with a leading "0x". It is a string value and the description describes the meaning for hash functions that produce integer values. Jim On 04/20/2018 06:42 PM, Larry Golding (Comcast) wrote: > Should hex hash digests have a leading "0x"? > > The spec doesn't say. The samples in the spec do /not/ have the > leading 0x, and at the moment, the SARIF SDK does not emit the leading 0x either. > > Larry >