Looking at PR#8287 I think we need to get some naming schemes written down
and documented and followed consistently. The naming used in this PR seems
to be somewhat inconsistent.

For me, I think the naming convention most often used is

return_type SOMETHING_whatever(SOMETHING *,...)

as a general rule for how we are naming things. There are lots of
exceptions to this in the code base - but this is also pretty much
consistent.

And we use typedef names in all capitals for what we expect users to work
with.
We avoid the use of pure lowercase in naming functions or typedefs that are
in the public API that we expect users to work with - all lowercase means
this is "internal" only usage.

And we reserve OSSL and OPENSSL as prefixes that we feel are safe to place
all new names under.

Tim.

Reply via email to