Whatever the answer is, it better end up in a PDD :)
--Josh At 2:00 on 03/29/2002 EST, Melvin Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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 >
