On Mon, 2003-08-25 at 19:39, Mike Kestner wrote: > On Mon, 2003-08-25 at 12:03, Rui Miguel Seabra wrote: > > > So what is being added is an irrelevant (and dangerous) test. > > This is not an irrelevant test. If xmlParseFile quietly returned NULL, > there would be no problem. The problem lies in the fact that it bitches > to stdout that the file doesn't exist. Therefore, if you don't want > your app to make noise, you have to test if the file exists before you > call xmlParseFile. If libxml does not have a way to shut that up, than that part should be fixed. > I'm not sure what you think is dangerous about adding this check. The > result of a file disappearing between the file_test and the xmlParseFile > call is the current behavior of a nag to stdout. It's the 'general practice' that's wrong and dangerous, but clearly it's libxml's fault here :| Also, it's one more test slowing evolution. Rui -- + No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown + Whatever you do will be insignificant, | but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi + So let's do it...? Please AVOID sending me WORD, EXCEL or POWERPOINT attachments. See http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part