Patrik Stridvall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> NULL values are not garbage IHMO, there are legitime uses for depending
> on NULL values returning failure because
> 1. Checking for NULL is a waste of time since the API already does it.
> 2. An explict check "pollutes" the code and is potentially less readable.
This is unfortunately the attitude that Microsoft is promoting in
Win95; but it is _wrong_. If a function doesn't expect a NULL pointer
and gets one, this is an application bug; by hiding them Microsoft
only makes debugging applications harder.
In our case it can either be an app bug or a Wine bug, and we can't
know until we have looked into it. If it turns out to be an app bug,
_then_ we have to add a NULL check; but the last thing we want to do
is to add preventive checks everywhere, since this will hide Wine bugs
too.
So yes, we may want to have more checks in 1.0; but we must not start
adding them before the rest of the code has been debugged properly.
--
Alexandre Julliard
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
