A good idea just occurred to me. I will rework #9274 and create two
new pull requests from it:
- PR 1: restructure the internal headers and fix the internal include guards.
- PR 2: fix the include guards for the public header files
PR 1 could be backported to 1.1.1 which would be advantageous
> > > That, to me, is much clearer than the "_int" suffix.
> >
> > This sounds like an excellent idea to me.
>
> "Someone" should create a PR...
I wouldn't mind doing it alongside the other changes in #9274,
but I'd prefer my alternative proposal, which I just posted before.
That is, if you agree
> > Me, I'm wondering if it wouldn't be clearer if we renamed
> > crypto/include/internal -> crypto/include/crypto, and thereby did
> > this:
> >
> > #include "crypto/evp.h"
> >
> > That, to me, is much clearer than the "_int" suffix.
>
> This sounds like an excellent idea to me.
Wouldn't i
On Sat, 06 Jul 2019 19:03:27 +0200,
Dr. Matthias St. Pierre wrote:
>
> > For things that are private to that sub-system (sorry, "package" doesn't
> > sound right)
>
> Neither does it to me, apologies. I was looking for the right word, but
> nothing except
> "package" came to my mind. And I was
> > ./crypto/include/internal/store.h
> > ./crypto/include/internal/store_int.h
> ...
>
> I have *no* idea why there are two header files. I must have
> forgotten about one of them when creating the other...
>
> They should be merged into one.
Ok, I can take care of it.
Matthias
> For things that are private to that sub-system (sorry, "package" doesn't
> sound right)
Neither does it to me, apologies. I was looking for the right word, but nothing
except
"package" came to my mind. And I was too lazy to search for it in the docs.
> Me, I'm wondering if it wouldn't be clea
On Sat, 06 Jul 2019 12:20:11 +0200,
Dr. Matthias St. Pierre wrote:
>
> > Having such a finegrained distinction is not the problem, but (at least to
> > me)
> > it is not entirely clear which include file goes into which directory.
>
> Note: the high score seems to lie at four different header fi
On Sat, 06 Jul 2019 11:50:48 +0200,
Dr. Matthias St. Pierre wrote:
>
> There are more oddities in the organization of the internal header files.
>
> 1) It appears to me that there are three different levels of internal header
> files
>
> - headers in `include/internal`
For internal things tha
> Having such a finegrained distinction is not the problem, but (at least to me)
> it is not entirely clear which include file goes into which directory.
Note: the high score seems to lie at four different header files for the same
package,
not counting the generated error header file:
~
There are more oddities in the organization of the internal header files.
1) It appears to me that there are three different levels of internal header
files
- headers in `include/internal`
- headers in `crypto/include/internal`
- headers in `crypto/` along with the source files
Having such a
Hello,
I'd like either _lcl.h or _local.h.
_locl.h seems weird to me :)
On Sat, Jul 6, 2019 at 10:32 AM Dr. Matthias St. Pierre <
matthias.st.pie...@ncp-e.com> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> pull request #9274 started out as a task to clean up inconsistencies in
> the naming
> of the include guards. It t
Hi all,
pull request #9274 started out as a task to clean up inconsistencies in the
naming
of the include guards. It turned out that there are also some inconsistencies
in the
naming of the include files.
Please take a look at the general discussion starting at
https://github.com/openssl/openss
12 matches
Mail list logo
