Subject: Re: Possible bug in (cvs) ares_parse_srv_reply.c /

Re: Possible bug in (cvs) ares_parse_srv_reply.c /

From: Jakub Hrozek <jhrozek_at_redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 18:50:00 +0100

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 10/26/2009 05:13 PM, Daniel Stenberg wrote:
> Personally I tend to prefer a "strict usage" where the arguments are not
> optional (ie they must not be NULL) and the function implementations can
> assume that they are set correctly as per the documentation. assert()s
> etc could be used to verify for debug-builds.
>
> But I'm open for what others think. If we have documented these
> functions to allow NULL for not storing any info, then we should of
> course check them. We should be consistent among all the functions that
> are so similar methinks.

My $0.02:

+1 to strict API + modifying all the other functions AND documenting it
in the manpages that the API is strict.

        Jakub
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iEYEARECAAYFAkrnMsgACgkQHsardTLnvCUgrwCgjprudje0YAf12P1utQGblmM7
yI0An00EmDGDtQ5LB/r1fDpRRU1n3TRe
=7t7D
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Received on 2009-10-27