jaltman> I would rather you just break the code outright. Forget the separate
jaltman> names. If you need to provide a method for determining whether or not
jaltman> the returned value should be considered persistent then add a
jaltman> parameter to the function specification which will determine the
jaltman> behavior.
I don't think Stephen meant that the old names would be meantioned any
more, just that they would be present in dynamic libraries so old
programs do not just wither and die suddenly...
If they would be mentioned at all, they should be surrounded with a
#ifdef OLD_OPENSSL..#endif or something similar.
Another idea is to simply start with new names and toss the old ones.
Sure, that will break some code, but at least it will be visible at
once! But perhaps that's exactly what you mean...
We could possibly offer to provide a name conversion script with
warnings about what needs to be changed around each function call that
has changed drastically enough to need calls to free up memory.
--
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]
