Peter Stuge wrote:
You said "might as well skip the extra typedef" and I thought that if
the spec explicitly says 8 bits and not 1 byte then there is a
(admittedly very small) point in having the abstraction.
ah, that was only a comment in the header file.
what the standard does is
typedef unsigned char CK_BYTE;
typedef CK_BYTE CK_BOOL;
function ( ... ; CK_BOOL token_present ; ... )
the typedefs are not conditional or anything, so there is no
difference if we uee "unsigned char" directly in that function
declaration. we also provide those typedef in case someone needs
them (but only if a compatibility flag is set).
the one important question for me isn't about style, but if we will
face any technical problem with the replacement headers. I don't think
so. And since it gets a license problems off our heads, I think of it
as a great improvement :)
Regards, Andreas
_______________________________________________
opensc-devel mailing list
opensc-devel@lists.opensc-project.org
http://www.opensc-project.org/mailman/listinfo/opensc-devel
