Path: csiph.com!x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net!usenet.pasdenom.info!aioe.org!feeder.news-service.com!news2.euro.net!newsgate.cistron.nl!newsgate.news.xs4all.nl!post.news.xs4all.nl!not-for-mail Return-Path: X-Original-To: python-list@python.org Delivered-To: python-list@mail.python.org X-Spam-Status: OK 0.001 X-Spam-Evidence: '*H*': 1.00; '*S*': 0.00; 'subject:Does': 0.04; 'ubuntu': 0.04; 'instance': 0.05; 'none:': 0.09; 'received:80.91': 0.09; 'received:80.91.229': 0.09; 'received:80.91.229.12': 0.09; 'received:gmane.org': 0.09; 'received:list': 0.09; 'received:lo.gmane.org': 0.09; 'binary': 0.13; 'subject:file': 0.13; 'wrote:': 0.15; '"right"': 0.16; "'rb')": 0.16; 'arguments:': 0.16; 'combined.': 0.16; 'die,': 0.16; 'hacks': 0.16; 'length,': 0.16; 'mode.': 0.16; 'received:dip.t-dialin.net': 0.16; 'received:t-dialin.net': 0.16; 'dance': 0.16; 'def': 0.16; 'meant': 0.17; 'string': 0.26; 'function': 0.26; 'tried': 0.27; "i'm": 0.27; 'version,': 0.28; 'correct': 0.29; "didn't": 0.29; 'not.': 0.30; 'from:addr:web.de': 0.30; 'subject:support': 0.30; 'subject:?': 0.31; 'usual': 0.32; 'to:addr:python-list': 0.34; 'header:X-Complaints-To:1': 0.34; 'implies': 0.35; 'legacy': 0.35; 'core': 0.36; 'explain': 0.36; 'file': 0.36; 'open': 0.37; 'but': 0.37; 'using': 0.37; 'received:org': 0.38; 'subject:: ': 0.38; 'header:Mime-Version:1': 0.39; 'to:addr:python.org': 0.39; 'might': 0.39; 'did': 0.40; 'give': 0.60; 'your': 0.60; 'number.': 0.63; 'defensive': 0.84; 'huh?': 0.84; 'subject:mode': 0.84; 'appeared': 0.91; 'bless': 0.91; 'does?': 0.91 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: python-list@python.org From: Peter Otten <__peter__@web.de> Subject: Re: Does hashlib support a file mode? Date: Wed, 06 Jul 2011 19:06:13 +0200 Organization: None References: <453cc47b-b545-4bcf-91c0-2efe2aae37bd@v11g2000prn.googlegroups.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: p5084b5d1.dip.t-dialin.net X-BeenThere: python-list@python.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: General discussion list for the Python programming language List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Newsgroups: comp.lang.python Message-ID: Lines: 29 NNTP-Posting-Host: 2001:888:2000:d::a6 X-Trace: 1309971973 news.xs4all.nl 21849 [2001:888:2000:d::a6]:52657 X-Complaints-To: abuse@xs4all.nl Xref: x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net comp.lang.python:8961 Phlip wrote: >> - Open the file in binary mode. > > I had tried open(path, 'rb') and it didn't change the "wrong" number. > > And I added --binary to my evil md5sum version, and it didn't change > the "right" number! > > Gods bless those legacy hacks that will never die, huh? But I'm using > Ubuntu (inside VMWare, on Win7, on a Core i7, because I rule), so that > might explain why "binary mode" is a no-op. Indeed. That part was a defensive measure mostly meant to make your function Windows-proof. >> - Do the usual dance for default arguments: >> def file_to_hash(path, m=None): >> if m is None: >> m = hashlib.md5() > > Not sure why if that's what the defaulter does? I did indeed get an > MD5-style string of what casually appeared to be the right length, so > that implies the defaulter is not to blame... The first call will give you the correct checksum, the second: not. As the default md5 instance remembers the state from the previous function call you'll get the checksum of both files combined.