At 10:50 PM 3/28/2002 -0800, Steve Fink wrote: > > The string_* functions treat NULL and an empty string as equivalent, so > > this saves time in case we don't actually do anything with the string. > >Okay, I just checked and you're right. I ran into it because not >everything goes through the string_* functions. Actually, I looked >through everything and it appears that everything non-IO-related is >ok, but the IO stuff all assumes non-NULL. > >I'll open a bug on it instead.
Is this a bug or a miscommunication? At one point I heard someone in charge say that NULLs were treated as invalid internal state and a routine was not obligated to check for NULL registers. If this is no longer the case, or never was, then I was either mistaken or missed the email. Especially since I was arguing _for_ NULLs :) -Melvin
