On Fri, Mar 29, 2002 at 02:00:16AM -0500, Melvin Smith 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 :)
That's what confused me too. But now I think that must have been for PMC registers only, not string registers.
