Re: "_t" type names, and other coding style alternatives

[Simon Josefsson]

Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos <address@hidden> writes:

> On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 2:22 PM, Simon Josefsson <address@hidden> wrote:
>
>>> Didn't like any of those. I just dropped the _t.
>> I also prefer just dropping any suffix.
>> Btw, is the "compatibility types" section really needed?  The reason for
>> the 3.0 branch was that we wanted to drop old compatibility code...
>
> The problem is that we need to have source compatibility.

We don't have that since we are removing some internal structs..

> If we force everyone to update their programs just to use 3.0 then
> adoption will be slow. Having a define of the old type to the new name
> is not much of an issue.

I agree, although I think it will take a long time (if ever) for people
to modify their applications to use the new types, so we could also live
with the old type names in the asn1* namespace and people won't have to
update their code.  I wish there were a attribute(__deprecated__) or
similar that worked for types, that could be a better compromise
solution.

/Simon