or perhaps, option 3:
enum {
SSL_HND_HELLO_REQUEST=0,
SSL_HND_CLIENT_HELLO=1,
};
...
Maybe the best of both worlds?
This message contains confidential information and may be privileged. If you
are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender and delete the message
immediately.
On Feb 14, 2010, at 10:49 PM, Jaap Keuter wrote:
> That would probably be #1.
> This option makes verification against a protocol spec / RFC easiest,
...and
1) means some debuggers will, for values of the enum type in question,
be able to print the value symbolically rather than numeri
Hi,
That would probably be #1.
This option makes verification against a protocol spec / RFC easiest,
also such values don't have to be sequential.
Thanks,
Jaap
Send from my iPhone
On 14 feb 2010, at 22:21, Kaul wrote:
> Which one is better?
> option 1:
> #define SSL_HND_HELLO_REQUEST
Which one is better?
option 1:
#define SSL_HND_HELLO_REQUEST 0
#define SSL_HND_CLIENT_HELLO 1
...
or perhaps, option 2:
enum {
SSL_HND_HELLO_REQUEST,
SSL_HND_CLIENT_HELLO,
};
...
and then (in both cases):
const value_string ssl_31_handshake_type[] = {
{ SSL_HND_HELLO_REQU
