"Tom Lane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > "Gaetano Mendola" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > "Tom Lane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> This seems inappropriate to me. Are you going to suggest that every > >> routine that takes a pointer parameter needs to explicitly test for > >> null? > > > Of course I'm not suggesting this, what I'm suggesting is put an > > assert( ) if the test can slow down the performances and an "if ( ) " > > in places that are not going to touch the performances. > > I see no value at all in an assert. The code will dump core just fine > with or without an assert ...
Right but an assert can display information about the file and line number without debug the application, without mention that reading the code with the assert is clear what are the precondictions for a call function. Regards Gaetano Mendola ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
