Allin Cottrell wrote: > On the one hand, the function is question is specialized, it's not > free(), nor g_free(), and no standard mandates that it should accept a > NULL pointer as a no-op.
Agreed. I wasn't suggesting that it's officially specified. I just think that this aspect of free() is intentional and useful, and that people have a reasonable expectation that g_error_free() will conform. This probably applies to other free()-like functions as well (I'm very new to glib). > On the other hand, if this function in fact accepts a NULL without > error it's perverse that it should make a fuss about it. It seems to > me that by far the most likely case of g_error_free() getting a NULL > argument is a coder expecting NULL -> no-op semantics by analogy with > C's free(). What sort of bug would you have in mind? _______________________________________________ gtk-devel-list mailing list gtk-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list