In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on Wed, 24 Mar 2004 10:40:14 -0500, Geoff Thorpe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
geoff> Well I was meaning counter-intuitive at the nit-picking level geoff> more than anything warranting CVS action. To my mind, they geoff> *both* RSA_NO_PADDING and RSA_ALREADY_PADDED mean "don't geoff> prepend any padding", but only one of them means "because I've geoff> already ensured the required conditions are met". But other geoff> readings are possible (and clearly, RSA_NO_PADDING has survived geoff> this far for the simple reason that nobody has seen anything to geoff> justify meddling with it). You know, nothing says we can't have both macros, one basically being an alias for the other. Reeedundant, sure, but allows the programmer to express what he does in a possibly more readable way for some (and it might very well be that some padding has already been applied to the message, making RSA_ALREADY_PADDED the more appropriate to use, but it may also be that the message has the required size to begin with, which makes RSA_NO_PADDING more appropriate). ----- Please consider sponsoring my work on free software. See http://www.free.lp.se/sponsoring.html for details. -- Richard Levitte \ Tunnlandsvägen 52 \ [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] \ S-168 36 BROMMA \ T: +46-708-26 53 44 \ SWEDEN \ Procurator Odiosus Ex Infernis -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] Member of the OpenSSL development team: http://www.openssl.org/ 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]
