"Simen kjaeraas" <simen.kja...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:op.vltjpebhvxi...@biotronic-pc.lan... > Nick Sabalausky <a...@a.a> wrote: > >> - if ( m > 12 ) { >> + if ( p && m > 12 ) { >> >> And you can toss in an "if(m>12) assert(p);" if you're worried about >> that. > > Of course. But the point is, this is unnecessary. We know p !is null > when m > 4. >
And my point is, the need to write it the way you described is unnecessary and frankly, error prone. So if better safety can be obtained by ditching a useless style that really shouldn't be used anyway, I say we should go for it.
