ben> That's what I am now wondering - if you do typographic subsitution, then
ben> c is declared "const char c[8]". Which, in the context, is "const char
ben> *c". But it seems the compiler is taking it as "char * const c". Which
ben> is right?
The difference is that des_cblock is defined through a typedef. In
such a case, you have built a new type, derived on another, and that
new type should be seen as an independent thing, like, for example,
int. I think the reason it was defined this way is to have some
measure of consistency. So typedefs do not mean there will be a
typographic substitution. If you want that, use #define instead.
On the other hand, des_cblock as a macro is an ugliness in itself.
--
Richard Levitte \ Spannv�gen 38, II \ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Redakteur@Stacken \ S-161 43 BROMMA \ T: +46-8-26 52 47
\ SWEDEN \ or +46-708-26 53 44
Procurator Odiosus Ex Infernis -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Unsolicited commercial email is subject to an archival fee of $400.
See <http://www.stacken.kth.se/~levitte/mail/> for more info.
______________________________________________________________________
OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org
Development Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
