>>> Nonsense. Source code is not API documentation, it is an >> > implementation, not an interface contract. >> >> I'm not sure I'd consider it nonsense. > >Comments in source code are not documentation, they explain the >internals of the implementation, not the contract.
Actually they can (and should) be both. >Users of a library need to depend on documented semantics, not >implementation >artefacts. True. But at the very least the two shouldn’t say different things. :-) >>Studying source code on occasion is simply par for the course when >> working with open source libraries. > >Here, by "open source" you mean poorly maintained. I'd like OpenSSL >to leave that legacy behind. Not all open source software is poorly >maintained and under-documented. Here you equate “poorly documented” with “poorly maintained”. I’m not sure it’s always true. >All I'm saying is that documentation is not optional. Neither source >code nor header files are documentation. Yes, I completely agree with this.
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
-- openssl-dev mailing list To unsubscribe: https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-dev
