Re: [gtk-list] Re: how can I trust glib when it has somanymemleaks?

[Ulric Eriksson <ulric edu stockholm se>]

On Thu, 18 Mar 1999, Havoc Pennington wrote:

> No. They are by definition *unused* holes, which is a different matter
> (though still a problem, a different problem).

No, they are *unusable* for anything but the purpose for which they were
set aside.

> > I have read the code. What strikes me as "stupid", no offense intended, is
> > to go on about how somebody is a smart guy and doesn't make mistakes.
> > 
> > Unless the design has been profiled or is at least supported by some form
> > of calculation, it is indeed "random".
> 
> I'm not saying they don't make mistakes. I'm saying they have most likely
> already thought about these issues, and there is no point demanding that
> they re-hash their thoughts just so that everyone knows they have indeed
> thought about it. Especially when they have already done so a couple of
> times in the past on this list.

Pointers? Just saying that someone has most likely thought about it
doesn't really cut it. Perhaps there is actual documentation that I have
missed - that would be brilliant!

> If you have actual profiling data data or a comment on the actual code
> which shows there's a problem or bug, then it's a different matter.

Who's talking about bugs? All I'm asking for is evidence of deliberate
design.

Ulric