On Sat, May 5, 2012 at 1:18 PM, David Seikel <onef...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sat, 05 May 2012 13:03:08 +0300 Tom Hacohen <t...@stosb.com> wrote: >> On 05/05/12 06:18, David Seikel wrote: >> > Just ignoring the failed allocation and trying to use a NULL pointer >> > will likely crash you anyway, but that's just being lazy. Failing >> > gracefully is generally better than failing disgracefully. >> >> Yes, but the amount of work just doesn't worth it. > > It would be a lot of work now to retrofit it to EFL, but I usually at > least stick in a NULL check at the time I add any allocs. Usually, > sometimes I'm too lazy to, but often add it later.
We are speacking about E, EFL are almost always checking for memory allocation and try to return to a safe state in case of an issue. But things will turn badly if you are running out of memory anyway ! -- Cedric BAIL ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ _______________________________________________ enlightenment-devel mailing list enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel
