On Mon, 2007-09-17 at 11:43 -0700, Doug Baskins wrote: > John:
> > If you're right, I can remove the -1 check. (But I tried that, > > and stuff failed which works with the check .. if my code > > was bugged it wouldn't work, even with the check..) > > NO, the -1 return is an "error flag" that says "check the error > structure" > for the type of error. My assumption was that no ordinary call can lead to an error. That is, calls like 'JudyLNext' 'JudyLGet' always return NULL for 'not found' case. So what you're telling me is my original assumption is right and there is a programming error in my code. The problem is .. if I DO check, my code works. How can that be? If there is a programming error something should break, but it doesn't. -- John Skaller <skaller at users dot sf dot net> Felix, successor to C++: http://felix.sf.net ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/ _______________________________________________ Judy-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/judy-devel
