> This is according to our interpretation of "type opacity", meaning that the > type name is available but not its content. "Data hiding" is another way to p ut > it. This means that there will be a need to adapt, stack allocated > EVP_CIPHER_CTX is no longer allowed, but there are functions to allocate and > free them on/from the heap (EVP_CIPHER_CTX_new and EVP_CIPHER_CTX_free). > > What's your interpretation of type opacity? I'm not going to say that you're > wrong and we're perfect, we're interested in feedback and constructive > arguments. I just wanted to let you know our thinking so far. >
> > > > apologies if I am missing something here. > > ...it is evident that I was missing something! A simple search for "opaque type" brings me to, eg, wikipedia (yes, that popular!) where I find: "In computer science, an opaque data type is a data type whose concrete data structure is not defined in an interface." ie exactly what I naively called "inconsistency" (!) I'm sorry for the noise: I promise next time I'll double check before disturbing thanks for your patience and politeness ciao gabriele _______________________________________________ openssl-dev mailing list To unsubscribe: https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-dev