Re: Fourth draft of defs file format
- From: Havoc Pennington <hp redhat com>
- To: Tim Janik <timj gtk org>
- Cc: Havoc Pennington <rhp zirx pair com>, Gtk+ Developers <gtk-devel-list redhat com>
- Subject: Re: Fourth draft of defs file format
- Date: 24 Jan 2000 16:40:53 -0500
Tim Janik <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> let this default to true, many functions may return NULL, and defaulting
> to false here is dangerous for wrong .defs files (which can easily happen,
> e.g. when the semantics of a function change) when bindings don't
> check the return value for NULL because of this.
> actually i even think assuring that a function will always return a
> result != NULL is dangerous in the first place, there are a lot
> of functions that should never return NULL, given valid function
> arguments, but the return_val_if_fail statements still default to NULL.
I think language binding authors should make the decision on whether
to be "safe" or "correct" here.
> i mentioned this already, please call this "nick" to follow gtk terminology,
> what you call "c-name" here is the actuall name of the value and shouldn't
> be supperessed by language bindings.
] [Thread Prev