Emmanuele Bassi wrote: > > Michael McConville wrote: > >> 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. > > No, "people" don't have a reasonable expectation. Otherwise we would > have had many bugs about this, or many other email threads in the past > 20 years. Please, don't try to generalise your issues.
I doubt they bother. I was annoyed by these console warnings for five months but never bothered to look into it until I had to rework a number of GError uses. Other Pidgin developers were also surprised by this. > You expected the *_free() functions in GLib to be NULL-safe. They > aren't, except for g_free(). g_error_free is. Maybe others too, I haven't checked. It just prints annoying console warnings. This really isn't a big deal - it's strange that some are being so political about it. > There is no explicit need to make them > NULL-safe, nor expectation of functionality. To be fair, a lot of > people to this day do not know that free() is NULL-safe; the amount of > code I've personally seen over the past 15 years that does: > > if (foo) > free (foo); > > is staggering. Agreed, a lot of people don't know about free being NULL-safe. A lot of people do, though. _______________________________________________ gtk-devel-list mailing list gtk-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list
