Garrett D'Amore writes: > On Fri, 2007-08-24 at 08:13 -0400, James Carlson wrote: > > Thus, the ASSERT here adds no real value and shouldn't appear. > > Ah, but the ASSERT here indicates that the author *knew* that he wasn't > checking for NULL, because it can't be. So it serves as a kind of > design statement. I think it is reasonable here. If it were removed, > then it should be replaced with a comment to the same effect...
To me, the intentional dereference makes the same statement, but if someone wanted to add a comment saying "I know ipst cannot be a bad pointer because <insert-reason-here>," I certainly wouldn't complain. The assert just says that it can't (by design) be NULL. It doesn't say it's a good pointer (no assert can say that really), nor does it really document the rationale (e.g., "this thread holds a reference"). Those are the key things for safety -- not just the single special value of NULL. -- James Carlson, Solaris Networking <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sun Microsystems / 1 Network Drive 71.232W Vox +1 781 442 2084 MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757 42.496N Fax +1 781 442 1677 _______________________________________________ networking-discuss mailing list [email protected]
