No problem, misunderstandings happen. Closing this ticket now.
Cheers, Richard Vid Sat, 16 Jan 2016 kl. 08.16.57, skrev baldu...@units.it: > > 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 -- Richard Levitte levi...@openssl.org _______________________________________________ openssl-dev mailing list To unsubscribe: https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-dev
