> At least they'd get an idea that something was up. If they are up for the job, they get that idea when they try to compile the thing and it doesn't because t

> At least they'd get an idea that something was up. If they are up for the job, they get that idea when they try to compile the thing and it doesn't because they are missing a function. They will read that function's documentation, and understand it; they may even take a peek at the implementation too, before porting it or implementing their own. Call me smug but I think porting security sensitive software should be left to people who have a clue. If you have to litter the code with hints and education for people who don't know what they are doing, then you end up with a port that was done by someone who seemed like he might know what he's doing, when there's a good chance that he doesn't. I would rather be able to immediately recognize ports made by people who obviously don't have a clue. So I know what to avoid... I am all for education, by the way. There are good secure coding guides out there, though having more wouldn't hurt. I just don't believe the approach you proposed is a good one.