According to Gabriele Bartolini: > >been set to a new HtCookieInFileJar object, which doesn't get deleted. > >Shouldn't the delete cookie_file statement be moved outside of the > >innermost if clause, and past the end of the else clause? > > It is deleted later by the main function, through the base class > HtCookieJar pointer.
OK, but that still doesn't explain the inconsistency. The HtCookieInFileJar object is allocated whether or not the result is non-zero, so why do you delete the object after using it when the result is zero, but leave it up to a completely different function otherwise? It just doesn't make sense to me, and it's clearly not "defensive programming". If you don't need the object anymore, you should delete it unconditionally. If you do need the HtCookieInFileJar object for later when the result code is non-zero, that hasn't been made clear. > >expert on every piece of code added to 3.2. If you add a description to > >defaults.cc yourself, doing your best to describe it, I'll gladly fix any > >grammatical errors or ask you about ambiguities I find in the description, > >but I don't want to have to document things I don't understand or use. > >Ditto for testing - I can't test cookie support in htdig, because I > >don't use them on my system. > > Sorry Gilles, I didn't explain myself correctly. I just wanted you to > eventually correct my entry in the defaults file, as you know my english > has a marked spaghetti accent. Well, on Feb. 1 you wrote: "Then, as always, Gilles (I know I am terrible but you should know me already!) please find me a suitable description for the 'cookies_input_file' attribute to be put in the defaults.cc file (and defaults.xml too!)." The words "find me a suitable description" certainly seem to imply you were expecting me to write it, not just proofread it, especially since you never gave me anything to proofread. Anyway, let me know when you've written something, and I'll have a look. (Maybe post to htdig-dev for others to comment too.) > I did not mean to ask you to test the cookies code, sorry about it! I was > referring just to the description stuff (or maybe the distributed > cookies.txt file). I misinterpreted what you wrote on Feb. 1: "Please test it and let me know if I can commit in the next week." I thought you were asking me, but that e-mail was addressed to all the developers. > I have switched to Debian now (my friends at my local LUG convinced my > after years of RedHat) and hopefully tomorrow I'll be able to commit the code. I have to ask, was it for practical or ideological reasons that they convinced you to switch? ;-) -- Gilles R. Detillieux E-mail: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Spinal Cord Research Centre WWW: http://www.scrc.umanitoba.ca/ Dept. Physiology, U. of Manitoba Winnipeg, MB R3E 3J7 (Canada) ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: SlickEdit Inc. Develop an edge. The most comprehensive and flexible code editor you can use. Code faster. C/C++, C#, Java, HTML, XML, many more. FREE 30-Day Trial. www.slickedit.com/sourceforge _______________________________________________ htdig-dev mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/htdig-dev
