Re: fclose(0)
- From: Ian Collins <ian-news@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2008 17:34:36 +1200
Richard Heathfield wrote:
lawrence.jones@xxxxxxxxxxx said:But he or she would if a paying customer filed a bug report. That is,
Bartc <bc@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
If this was the case then it would be better to admit it rather thanIt *is* a good idea:
suggest, as a few people have, that crashing on passing a null pointer
is actually a good idea.
No, it's merely a useful consequence.
it forces programmers to fix their defective code.
If that were true, it would be a pity that it isn't guaranteed by the
Standard. But it isn't true, of course. Some programmers never even see
the crashes, let alone fix their causes. For example, I have a web browser
written by someone else, which crashes whenever I accidentally click on a
PDF link and then click "cancel" on the subsequent dialog asking if I want
to hand over my firstborn to Adobe. Clearly the programmer never bothered
to test this execution path, so he has /not/ been forced to fix his
defective code.
unless he or she works for a well known supplier of non-compliant browsers.
--
Ian Collins.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: fclose(0)
- From: Richard Heathfield
- Re: fclose(0)
- References:
- fclose(0)
- From: Bartc
- Re: fclose(0)
- From: Richard Heathfield
- Re: fclose(0)
- From: Bartc
- Re: fclose(0)
- From: Eric Sosman
- Re: fclose(0)
- From: Bartc
- Re: fclose(0)
- From: lawrence . jones
- Re: fclose(0)
- From: Richard Heathfield
- fclose(0)
- Prev by Date: Re: fclose(0)
- Next by Date: Re: lcc-win32 conformance question
- Previous by thread: Re: fclose(0)
- Next by thread: Re: fclose(0)
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|