Early std.crypto

[Piotr Szturmaj]

Jude Young wrote:
> 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.

This was my goal... to write native implementation along with OpenSSL 
wrapper and add 'useOpenSSL' version identifier. Would that satisfy 
everyone?