From: Dr Stephen Henson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
drh> The problem here is what is right?
Consistency can't be wrong in the long run, can it?
drh> Its not that clear cut.
True. That requiers a Decision on our part. If nothing else, a vote
will do, I assume :-).
drh> Doing either will break lots of existing code need major rewrites and
drh> probably get several of us lynched :-)
Well, there already lynching going on about the current
inconsistencies, so all we really have to do is to choose what we
prefer to get lynched for :-).
drh> So the alternative is to have a naming convention and just say
drh> the old functions are retained for backwards compatibility. Any
drh> future documentation might not even document the old functions to
drh> encourage the use of the new versions.
... and at some points, the old functions will disappear (first called
obsolete, and then some kind of survey on what obsoleted functinos are
stil used, or something?)? I guess I can live with that.
Still, at some point (I think that was last summer) someone said that
before version 1, basically anything goes, it should be assumed that
1.0.0 may mean a completely different API (probably a bit of
exageration in there :-)), and that's what I told the programmers I'm
associated with...
--
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]
