[Cryptography] GnuTLS -- time to look at the diff.

Tom Mitchell mitch at niftyegg.com
Fri Mar 7 22:12:21 EST 2014

On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 5:28 PM, James A. Donald <jamesd at echeque.com> wrote:

> On 2014-03-08 03:22, Nico Williams wrote:
>> Consider some alternatives:
> ......

>          ...
>      }

C++ can

A week ago in this tangle someone noted that the coding
style (goto) was best matched to the necessary tick boxes
implied in the standard being complied to.

I apologize for not gigging back far enough but the root
of the issue here is not goto, not C, not C++ it is the
style, structure and language used in the standard that
needs to be corrected.

A standard that lends itself to transcription and translation
into a modern "safe" language is a necessary step in moving

It is also likely that the standard was transcribed and translated
from old school "C"...

However this does hint that the place to start is with standards
authors.   They in turn would do well to embrace a modern
language that happens to have compilers capable of generating
objects that can link to GCC/LLVM objects.  So author and
prototype in a modern language and then move that improved
thought process into the standards.

  T o m    M i t c h e l l
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.metzdowd.com/pipermail/cryptography/attachments/20140307/4afec24f/attachment.html>

More information about the cryptography mailing list