On Sun, Jul 27, 2003 at 01:54:58PM -0500, Matthew Vanecek was heard to remark:
> >
> > + for (node = be->blist; node; node = node->next) {
> > + g_free(node->data);
> > + node->data = NULL;
> > + }
As a general and simplistic rule, if you didn't alloc it, don't free it.
If you called xaccXXXMalloc, then call xaccXXXFree, but otherwise,
you shouldn't touch it.
> > + if (1 < be->nest_count) {
> > + LEAVE("be->nest_count < 1: %d", be->nest_count);
> >
> > The message is reversed. This is checking whether be->next_count > 1
> >
> > (FWIW, I absolutely despise this style, for this exact reason!)
I love this style. Its saved my but several times when I types
be->next_count = 1
instead of
be->next_count == 1
I admit it contrary to the norm, but its not hard to get used to,
and after a while, you wonder why everybody doesn't use it.
(Its part of my philosphy that one-byte typing errors should
cause compiler faults instead of silent, hard-to-find bugs.
Although I'm still ambivalent about
if (NULL == xx)
vs.
if (!x)
since I'm also a lazy typist.)
--linas
--
pub 1024D/01045933 2001-02-01 Linas Vepstas (Labas!) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PGP Key fingerprint = 8305 2521 6000 0B5E 8984 3F54 64A9 9A82 0104 5933
_______________________________________________
gnucash-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.gnucash.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel
