Hi Colin,
> > 2) Allowing NULL pointers as arguments in all possible places is
> > *not* a good coding style in general. (It may be a good practice,
> > though, when you're being paid for a consulting project and your
> > code will never be maintained once you have delivered it.)
>
> I respect your opinion as the maintainer and if you don't want to
> include this that's of course fine, but please could you refrain from
> implying incompetence? It's not nice.
I'm sorry that you understood it in that way. It was really not meant that
way. I remember your name as a long-time serious contributor to various
packages.
It must be possible to talk about coding style and good/bad practices.
Of course, what I said about these practices are _opinions_, and
- Anyone can disagree with my opinions.
- Opinions can change over time: You are showing that when I wrote
the gl_list_iterator_next code, I apparently had a different
opinion.
- I do not even know whether you have the habit of allowing NULL
arguments in general. Therefore I was not criticizing you; I was
criticizing a certain aspect of the proposed patch. (Which is also
what I constantly do before committing or submitting a patch myself:
scrutinize it under aspects that, from experience, are known as
good or bad practices.)
The sentence about the consulting project was not about you as a person
either; it was meant as a reflection about a condition when I would find
it justified to employ that "bad" coding style myself.
Can we be friends again?
Bruno
