Closed mmagician closed 6 months ago
Also, I don't think we should derive Absorb
for LabelledCommitment
. Really the label only exists in the code for debugging purposes; the commitment should already be a unique representative of its polynomial. Absorbing the string would only add inefficiency.
Also, I don't think we should derive Absorb for LabelledCommitment. Really the label only exists in the code for debugging purposes; the commitment should already be a unique representative of its polynomial. Absorbing the string would only add inefficiency.
Sure, makes sense. We can impl Absorb
for String
regardless.
If one wants String
then one typically wants str
instead (or perhaps in addition).
As an aside, it's bizarre LabeledCommitment::label
returns &String
instead of &str
.
I think folks have typically chosen &[u8]instead of the utf8
String/
str` for labels, but actually the unicode lookalikes are not a problem here, so probably not a real concern.
Description
Needed for deriving
Absorb
forLabeledCommitment
in poly-commit.closes: #XXXX
Before we can merge this PR, please make sure that all the following items have been checked off. If any of the checklist items are not applicable, please leave them but write a little note why.
Pending
section inCHANGELOG.md
Files changed
in the Github PR explorer