owner-openssl-us...@openssl.org wrote on 11/26/2009 06:35:42 PM: > > Finally, the source code IS the only reliable source of documentation > > (assuming you can trust your compiler, OS, and hardware to do "the > > right thing"). It isn't the most CONVENIENT, which is why we desire > > other forms.
Two problems: 1 - Reading the source is only as reliable as the skill of the reader and the comments in the code. I'd rather have the answers than a research project. 2 - If I read the source, I can't determine which functions are stable and intended to be used by applications and which are internal and subject to change or deletion with every release. > the implementation details of the 250-odd API entry points in libssl.so > would tell me very little about how to properly USE those APIs, and in > fact, designing an application around my interpretation of the library > developers intent would likely lead me down some rabbit holes I'd rather > not explore. User manual type documentation would be nice, but I'd be content with a more complete implementation of what's there now. E.g., the AES functions are not documented yet. I find the current documentation quite clear and easy to use. My only issue is that some functions are just not documented.
