I see no good reason to use _Nettle, when that API most likely will be both stable and useful.
/ Johan Sundström (folkskådare)
Previous text:
2003-03-12 15:22: Subject: nettle-1.7
Perhaps. The idea is that it should represent the C library in a pikish way, but with few extra features. So it could be used directly, if there ever are any obscure features in nettle that doesn't fit in Crypto.
As far as I see, module names like _Foo are used when the official name of a module is Foo, and Foo.pmod is written in Pike, and there also is an internal C module that is "owned" by Foo. Then _Foo is a good name for the internal module. But a while ago, someone argued that in this situation, both modules could be named Foo, and it would still work.
Either name is ok with me. What do others think?
/ Niels Möller ()