> This makes me wonder whether a) perhaps a native C++ interface is in order
> (with the inherent advantages and disadvantages); and b) should
My vote is to keep things in C.
> object-oriented terminology be used in the documentation, as a pedagogical
> tool? In other words (for the latter), perhaps the documentation should be
> along the lines of: "A BIO is essentially an abstract class, but is
> specified in C. You can implement your own particular BIO (analogous to
> deriving an implementation class from an abstract class), by providing the
> following functions (i.e. methods). Since this is C and not C++, you have
> to make the methods available as follows...., and you have to explicitly
> create (i.e. construct) and free (i.e. destroy)....
> Note that the existing ssleay.txt already uses the term "method" but doesn't
> really make the connection to the OO concept explicit.
>
> Gary
>
> ====================================================================
> Ready-to-Run Software, Inc.
> Software Porting Specialists.
> *****************************
> email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Gary Feldman
> fax : 1-978-692-5401 Ready-to-Run Software, Inc.
> voice: 1-978-251-5431 11 School Street
> www : http://www.rtr.com North Chelmsford, MA 01863
> USA
>
> ______________________________________________________________________
> OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org
> Development Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
------------------------------------------------------
Douglas Wikstr�m <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------------------------------
Yes, God created Man before Woman,
but one always makes a draft before the masterpiece.
------------------------------------------------------
______________________________________________________________________
OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org
Development Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
