Bojan Smojver wrote:
On Tue, 2008-04-29 at 22:41 -0300, César Leonardo Blum Silveira wrote:
I'm really sorry if this is annoying, but no one gave any feedback on
this. Hasn't anyone liked the idea? Or maybe I should log this on
bugzilla?
I think this in unlikely to be included, as it changes the usual APR
behaviour (which is something you noted yourself). Usually, we just let
things segfault if values passed into the function are not correct.
BTW, you can solve your problem by wrapping APR functions into your own,
where you do perform the checks and/or define needed variables
correctly.
This answer isn't really very helpful. He's proposing to make NULL a
well-defined parameter for this function, not an incorrect one.
On the other hand, I generally object to overloading semantics depending
on parameter values. In this particular case the proper way would be to
add a new public function that does just the existence check.
-- Brane
