Nicolas, Fair enough, but it's the rest of the expression that bothers me - what does the second argument sequence do?
Bill -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Nicolas Cellier Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2009 3:23 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] OpenSSL - a couple of questions Schwab,Wilhelm K <bsch...@...> writes: > > Hello all, > > Do you have any thoughts on whether a wrapper for OpenSSL should be a plugin or based on FFI/Alien? Would > blocking calls be best handled by using OS threads or non-blocking sockets? In either case, I would > envision using semaphores to block only the calling Process instance. > > Loosely related, can you understand (and explain to me - perhaps the hard part<g>) the following syntax: > > void (*CRYPTO_get_locking_callback(void))(int mode,int type,const char > *file,int line); > > It looks to me like a shotgun wedding of an incomplete typedef of a function pointer type and a function > prototype. Any ideas? > > Bill > Doesn't the CRYPTO_get_locking_callback function returns a pointer to a function with no argument (void) and no return value (void), or something like that ? Nicolas _______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project _______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
