-----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Paul Schmehl ...
But it shouldn't be the job of the writer of a subroutine to verify the inputs. The writer of a subroutine defines what the appropriate inputs to that routine are, and it's up to the *user* of that subroutine to use it properly. The entire concept behind OOP is that you cannot know what's in the "black box" you're using. That makes it incumbent on you as the
*user*
of a subroutine to use the correct inputs and to *verify* those inputs
when
necessary.
That is the most backward thing I have ever heard. So you are saying all I need to do as a programmer is tell you not to pass a negative number/null pointer/un-initialized value... to my function and I am off the hook. All I can say is that I am glad utdallas doesn't have you teaching programming. The fact that you are unaware what lies inside the black box in no way relieves the responsibility of the designer of the black box to make sure that it behaves predictably under all input cases.
So you're saying I don't need to worry if a file pointer is NULL before passing it through to fprintf()? So I don't need to worry if an argument to strcpy() is NULL? Or are you trying to say that the standard library is badly written?
-- Brett Hutley [MAppFin,CISSP,SANS GCIH] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hutley.net/brett
_______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html
