Patrik Stridvall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Well there are two cases here
> (1) The application really behaves this way and this
> works on Windows.
> (2) A previous API that failed cause directly or
> indirectly a NULL value being passed.
>
> The (1) case should obviously be fixed, case (2) is
> more problematic of course. But the problem is that
> one application might work if a function doesn't crash
> and another might be harder to debug because it didn't
> crash.
>
> So it is an issue between teoretical correctness
> vs practical easy of debugging. Since the debugging
> problem can be solved by other means, it doesn't weight
> very much compared to correctness IMHO.
I disagree. We should try to catch problems as soon as possible, not
hide them and hope the app will stumble along for a little while
longer. Unfortunately Win 95 uses the latter approach so there are
cases where we have to ignore bad inputs; but we shouldn't do it
unless there is a real app that depends on it. Feeding garbage to all
the APIs and fixing them to ignore it is counterproductive at this
point IMO.
--
Alexandre Julliard
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
