-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 238
async-signature: move to AFIT #1419
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Closed
Closed
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
3 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or 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
This file contains hidden or 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
This file contains hidden or 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
This file contains hidden or 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
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'd much rather have a
impl<D, S, T> AsyncSigner<S> for T where T: AsyncDigestSigner<D, S>instead of this blanket.Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
First, you cannot write such a blanket impl, because
Dis unconstrained (and indeed working around that issue is the whole purpose of the signature-derive:(And though
PrehashSignaturecan define a default digest to use with a particularS, you still won't be able to write a valid blanket impl with it, because it still won't be constrained)Second, these traits are intended to correspond 1:1 with the traits in
signature. If there isn't a blanket impl betweenSignerandDigestSigner, it doesn't make sense to have one here because that would be inconsistent.Third, these blanket impls exist so that you can use a
Signeras anAsyncSigner, i.e. if you have an API that acceptsAsyncSigner, anyone can plug in aSigner, and the same goes for all of the other traits, eliminating the need to duplicate APIs everywhere just for async.Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I oversimplified the previous comment a bit, but yeah I intended:
This is essentially what's in the
#[derive(signature::Signer)]I guess I could add that tosignature_derivethen (should be in the dependency tree, given the proper feature-flags)?There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
That does indeed seem to work, but
signaturehas no such blanket impl, so I think it'd be weird for them to be inconsistent.It could potentially be included in a hypothetical future
signature3.0, although the devil is in the details for these sort of blanket impls, and they may preclude overlapping impls with a valid use case.