Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192]
	helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
	by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
	(envelope-from <pieter.wuille@gmail.com>) id 1YE9Fy-0006wE-5C
	for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
	Thu, 22 Jan 2015 04:20:34 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
	designates 209.85.223.176 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=209.85.223.176; envelope-from=pieter.wuille@gmail.com;
	helo=mail-ie0-f176.google.com; 
Received: from mail-ie0-f176.google.com ([209.85.223.176])
	by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
	(Exim 4.76) id 1YE9Fx-0003VT-Dq
	for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
	Thu, 22 Jan 2015 04:20:34 +0000
Received: by mail-ie0-f176.google.com with SMTP id rd18so17063836iec.7
	for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
	Wed, 21 Jan 2015 20:20:28 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.43.140.68 with SMTP id iz4mr524101icc.77.1421900425557; Wed,
	21 Jan 2015 20:20:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.50.20.229 with HTTP; Wed, 21 Jan 2015 20:20:25 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <2955914.eNECdfYQmZ@crushinator>
References: <CAPg+sBhk7F2OHT64i2LNSjv8DR5tD3RJkLJGzPGZW8OPQTCjQw@mail.gmail.com>
	<87egqnwt7g.fsf@rustcorp.com.au> <2955914.eNECdfYQmZ@crushinator>
Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2015 23:20:25 -0500
Message-ID: <CAPg+sBg8F4ZRXLCvCv+sqapJudyKpGvHB+e=TYSTnG+cP5im0g@mail.gmail.com>
From: Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail.com>
To: Matt Whitlock <bip@mattwhitlock.name>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
X-Spam-Score: -1.6 (-)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
	See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
	-1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for
	sender-domain
	0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider
	(pieter.wuille[at]gmail.com)
	-0.0 SPF_PASS               SPF: sender matches SPF record
	-0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from
	author's domain
	0.1 DKIM_SIGNED            Message has a DKIM or DK signature,
	not necessarily valid
	-0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature
X-Headers-End: 1YE9Fx-0003VT-Dq
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] [softfork proposal] Strict DER signatures
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
	<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
	<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2015 04:20:34 -0000

On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 11:18 PM, Matt Whitlock <bip@mattwhitlock.name> wrote:
> To be more in the C++ spirit, I would suggest changing the (const std::vector<unsigned char> &sig, size_t &off) parameters to (std::vector<unsigned char>::const_iterator &itr, std::vector<unsigned char>::const_iterator end).

I agree that is more in the spirit of C++, but part of the motivation
for including C++ code that it mostly matches the exact code that has
been used in the past two major Bitcoin Core releases (to interpret
signatures as standard).

-- 
Pieter