On Thursday, June 20, 2013 21:38:57 Namespace wrote: > Yes that's obvious. My question is: is that intended? IMO this > could cause bugs.
It's a natural result of how the implementation works. Checking for null would just be extra overhead (Walter won't even do that for virtual functions which _will_ blow up when you call them on null references). And you'll get a segfault as soon as you actually use a member variable or virtual function with a null reference within a non-virtual function. So, I don't see why it would be a problem other than the fact that it's potentially confusing to people when they see a null this reference, since most people don't think that's possible. And there's _definitely_ no point in checking if you're calling a static function. The only possible bug that you have there is if thought that you were calling a member function rather than a static function and that caused you to misunderstand what the code was doing and potentially write buggy stuff around it - but that's a problem caused by the fact that static functions can be called via an instance, and fixing that would mean making it illegal to call static functions on instances (which I would love to have happen but don't expect to ever happen). - Jonathan M Davis
