Early std.crypto

[Jude Young]

On Sun 27 Nov 2011 10:27:58 AM CST, bcs wrote:
> On 11/26/2011 04:19 PM, Brad Anderson wrote:
>>
>> How about putting a disclaimer on the module warning the code hasn't
>> been through a rigorous security audit and point them at well
>> established C libraries if they need that sort of assurance.
>
> What does that gain over implementing the first itteration in terms of
> well established C libraries and then replacing that with native
> implementations as the code goes been through a rigorous security audit?
>
> Or how about do both as API compatible implementations? That would
> work for people who need the proven security and people who can't
> afford external dependencies as well as allow them to be swapped out
> for each other with minimal effort once the native code is proven.
>

I do like this idea.
swap implementations by simply swapping import and linking?
nice.