> http://www.columbia.edu/~ariel/ssleay/cryptosupp_index.html
You're right, that *should* be linked from the OpenSSL page. It is leaps
and bounds beyond the docs folder.
Can we go one better than that, though? I wonder if those pages shouldn't
form the core of a new set of developer documentation? (Provided the
author is willing, of course.)
>For my project, I started with the docs, then read the source for
>specific details, like the handling of NULL pointers.
My point is that
a. it shouldn't be necessary to untangle and read lots of source
just to perform what should be a simple act (eg: constructing a
distinguished name)
b. the docs should accurately describe the inputs, outputs, and
side-effects of a function, so that...
c. you should only need to read the source if you want to learn how
something works or want to expand it
d. new functions (eg: i2d_xxx or d2i_xxx) should conform to the
practices already set out in the docs so there aren't any nasty suprises.
This is _much_ easier if the docs 1) exist and 2) are clear and 3) are
accessible.
I'm not just complaining, I'm offering to help with what I see is a weak
point in the project.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
CJ Holmes It is completely configurable -
StarNine you just can't change the settings.
Senior Software Engineer
______________________________________________________________________
OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org
Development Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
