SteveKing <steveking@gmx.ch> wrote on 08/26/2004 03:11:36 PM:
> Greg Hudson wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 2004-08-26 at 14:53, SteveKing wrote:
> >
> >>As for the why this happens: please do the NULL check even if you
can't
> >>find out when exactly and under what circumstances it happens.
> >
> >
> > That way lies eventual madness. I know it can be frustrating, but
when
> > we find a bug, we do need to make sure we fix it in the proper way,
and
> > not just plaster over it.
> >
>
> Sure. But in such cases, I still add the check but give the user an
> error message with as much information I can put in it. That way when
> this happens later again, I can find out much more than just from a
> crash. If a program crashes, users tend to just say some curses, restart
> and try again. But if an error message is shown, eventually with the
> hint text to contact the developers they will do that more likely.
> And: a crash is a much worse user impression than an error message!
As I see it there are two aspects to this bug:
1) Why did the function return NULL?
2) Why wasn't the NULL checked for as it is a few lines later?
While both problems should be fixed, #2 can be fixed now and prevents a
crash. I think all Stefan is saying is why hold up that fix while you
figure out the cause of #1?
Mark
_____________________________________________________________________________
Scanned for SoftLanding Systems, Inc. by IBM Email Security Management Services powered by MessageLabs.
_____________________________________________________________________________
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Thu Aug 26 21:17:14 2004