In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on Thu, 27 Jun 2002 17:13:15 +0100, Ben
Laurie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
ben> Can we wrap this kind of thing up in a back compatibility flag of some
ben> kind (at least in 0.9.8) so we know we can remove them eventually?
I've pondered starting to define some kind of general backward
compatibility flags. DEC C uses the macros DECC_V4_SOURCE and
DECC_V6_SOURCE to check if the user wants DEC C version 4 or version 6
compatibility. We could define the macros OPENSSL_096_SOURCE,
OPENSSL_097_SOURCE and so on.
Comments?
--
Richard Levitte \ Spannv�gen 38, II \ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Redakteur@Stacken \ S-168 35 BROMMA \ T: +46-8-26 52 47
\ SWEDEN \ or +46-708-26 53 44
Procurator Odiosus Ex Infernis -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Member of the OpenSSL development team: http://www.openssl.org/
Unsolicited commercial email is subject to an archival fee of $400.
See <http://www.stacken.kth.se/~levitte/mail/> for more info.
______________________________________________________________________
OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org
Development Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
