What about renaming the function? EmptyStringHACK() or something?
On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 1:49 PM, Peter Kasting <pkast...@google.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 1:43 PM, Jeremy Orlow <jor...@chromium.org> wrote:
>
>> You ignored the second half of my suggestion.
>>
>
> The second half of your suggestion leaks memory. When we have easy and
> elegant ways to avoid memory leaks, it behooves us to use them.
>
> It also seems like a poor idea to me to suggest that, potentially, any
> function returning a string by reference might have to have its own memory
> leak, or allocation code, or static object, if it needs to be able to return
> an empty object. Even if we could do that with no ill consequences, it
> would be nice to avoid it.
>
> After my patch, the total number of calls of these functions in the entire
> codebase is something like 10 instances. They're rare enough to be
> invisible to most people and unusual otherwise.
>
> PK
>
--
Chromium Developers mailing list: chromium-dev@googlegroups.com
View archives, change email options, or unsubscribe:
http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-dev
