Hello,
On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 1:16 PM, Steffan Karger <stef...@karger.me> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 15 January 2018 at 23:33, Emmanuel Deloget <log...@free.fr> wrote:
> > For the variables outside the ifs, the next C standard should allow us to
> > write something like:
> >
> > if ((RSA *rsa = EVP_PKEY_get0_RSA(pkey)) != NULL) {
>
> Yeah, such a shame that this didn't make it into C11. Scoping a
> variable to an if block is often useful. If only for error checking
> like if(int err = foo()) { handle error }. Anyway, we can't have it
> :(
>
> On 16 January 2018 at 09:26, Gert Doering <g...@greenie.muc.de> wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 01:56:11AM +0100, Emmanuel Deloget wrote:
> >> 3) rework it as proposed in the patch
> >>
> >> RSA *rsa = NULL;
> >> if ((rsa = EVP_PKEY_get0_RSA(pkey)) != NULL) { ... }
> >
> > I do not particularily like assignments in if() clauses, especially when
> > the variable is declared right above it. So if we go for (3), my
> > favourite would be
> >
> > RSA *rsa = EVP_PKEY_get0_RSA(pkey);
> > if (rsa != NULL) { ... }
> >
> >
> > but this is just a side remark. The question on "1, 2 or 3" I'll defer
> > to you folks that are maintaing this code (Steffan and Selva, mostly :)
> ).
>
> This indeed looks a bit better that initializing to NULL if we're
> going to take the variables outside the scope.
>
> Seems I've been overruled by majority regarding the way to go, and
> with the suggestion from cron2 taken into account I think 3 is the way
> to go.
>
> -Steffan
>
I'm OK with this (3) variation :)
I'm respinning the patches.
BR,
-- Emmanuel Deloget
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Openvpn-devel mailing list
Openvpn-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/openvpn-devel
