Mark Borgerding wrote:
>
> Ben Laurie Wrote
> >It's at times like this that I wish they hadn't made && boolean.
> >Wouldn't it be cool to write:
> > a=b && BN_dup(b);
>
> Yup, that would be cool, but you can still do
> a = b && a = BN_dup ( b );
> or more explict, but still tight:
> a = ( b ? BN_dup ( b ) : 0 );
>
> or better yet, we could just change BN_dup to check for a NULL arg.
That doesn't fix the language, which was my point, but yes, we can fix
OpenSSL this way.
Cheers,
Ben.
--
http://www.apache-ssl.org/ben.html
"My grandfather once told me that there are two kinds of people: those
who work and those who take the credit. He told me to try to be in the
first group; there was less competition there."
- Indira Gandhi
______________________________________________________________________
OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org
User Support Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
