On Wed, Apr 17, 2002 at 04:00:25PM -0400, Dave Hill wrote: > My first inclination was to think "what a bonehead thing to do", my > second inclination was that maybe > apr should protect me from myself a bit more.... > > Wouldn't it make sense to make a path in that case with only src1 as the > content ? > -or- > Wouldn't it make sense fo the function to return a NULL back to the > caller if src1 or src2 are null > -or- > Wouldn't it make sense for me just to check my arguments be for calling > apr :-)
APR, being a library, isn't in the business of checking for valid user input. We'd prefer to save the extra cpu cycles. I guess the technical argument in this case would be: NULL isn't a string, but "" is. (Now I think assert()s are a different story; but I'll save that for a different discussion.) -aaron
