On 31/10/17 16:42, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > On 31-10-17 17:26, Matt Caswell wrote: >> I agree its not a great name for it. Unfortunately we are stuck with it >> for compatibility reasons. If we renamed it we would break any code that >> is currently using it. We could introduce a new flag with a different >> name which does the same thing - but I'm not sure that does anything to >> make things less confusing. > > You could always keep the old name around and mark it deprecated. GCC > even has a pragma for that -- __attribute__((deprecated)) -- although I > doubt it works on macros (haven't tested that). > > I suppose it might be too much of an effort for too little gain, though. > As a matter of policy we won't deprecate anything more until we do a 1.2.0 release. If someone wants to create a PR for a new name for this (defining the old one to point at the new one), then I'd review it. But if we're going to go to that effort then we should write the documentation as part of the PR (there seems little sense to me in replacing an undocumented name which you have to read the source to understand with another undocumented name that you also have to read the source to understand). Matt -- openssl-users mailing list To unsubscribe: https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-users
