3 ms·
The "suffix" there is a docs mistake. if you look at the example csexp's on the page the lengths are prefixed. I think that the csexp's of this package are comp
by correnos 3y ago
The "suffix" there is a docs mistake. if you look at the example csexp's on the page the lengths are prefixed. I think that the csexp's of this package are compatible with Rivest's format.
- chubot 3y agoOK yeah, the 3:bag is easy to see. With netstrings, it's 3:bag, with a comma, which makes it a bit more readable over the wire. The extra level of Racket quoting was confusing me -- #"" and \" -- it would be nicer if they just wrote exactly what's transmitted over the wire. And still the page does seem like it's missing a reference. Both Rivest's page and this page seem a bit underdeveloped for a "canonical" format ...
- correnos 3y agoSo, "canonical" here means "for a given tree of data this is one unambiguous binary representation for it," which is a useful property for crypto signatures. It does not mean "this is a blessed way to write sexp's", though folks can be forgiven for not realizing that since the docs here don't say much about the when's or why's of use.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]