This time it really is my reply and not Richard's :-)
On Thu, 29 Mar 2001, Ben Laurie wrote:
> I think you have some weird kind of aesthetics. A change is a change,
> and it may was well be a clear one - adding a 1 on the end doesn't make
> it clear why a non-standard name was used. Prepending an OPENSSL makes
> it stand out like a sore thumb.
It's because even if a "standard name" was used, it would be the only one in the
DES code. Moreover, des_encrypt() isn't really meant to be used directly, but
rather via the other forms (ie. those specific to a particular mode), so it's an
odd choice for the the only DES function with a sensible-looking "exported"
function name.
The other reason of course for the non-standard name is that it matches up with
the other non-standard names. :-) There's already des_encrypt2() and
des_encrypt3() functions defined, so changing des_encrypt() to des_encrypt1()
actually wasn't that absurd.
Cheers,
Geoff
______________________________________________________________________
OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org
Development Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
