drh> Bodo Moeller wrote:
drh> >
drh> > Dr Stephen Henson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
drh> >
drh> > > getR looks a bit peculiar to me.
drh> >
drh> > Yes, but the essential difference between XYZ_get_abc, XYZ_rget_abc
drh> > and XYZ_iget_abc (for example X509_CTX_rget_chain, X509_CTX_iget_chain,
drh> > X509_CTX_get_chain, except that we don't have all three names for this
drh> > one) might be not visible enough. I want the difference to stick out.
drh> > I'm not really happy about X509_CTX_getR_chain either, but I haven't
drh> > yet found anything really convincing.
Both look peculiar to me :-). It's confusing to have an extra letter
attached to the main function name. I'd like an underscore between
(for example X509_CTX_I_get_chain or X509_CTX_get_I_chain, the
placement doesn't really matter to me).
Otherwise, I must say that I personally would like things to Become
Right rather than keeping Bug Compatibility, if one has to choose. So
I'd choose to put correctly updated and used reference counters
everywhere (or at least where it's relevant).
Yes, there will be some struggle with old code that will break, but I
think that the future will look better with better consistency.
--
Richard Levitte \ Spannv�gen 38, II \ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Redakteur@Stacken \ S-161 43 BROMMA \ T: +46-8-26 52 47
\ SWEDEN \ or +46-708-26 53 44
Procurator Odiosus Ex Infernis -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Unsolicited commercial email is subject to an archival fee of $400.
See <http://www.stacken.kth.se/~levitte/mail/> for more info.
______________________________________________________________________
OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org
Development Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
