Andreas Färber <afaer...@suse.de> writes: > Am 01.06.2012 13:18, schrieb Markus Armbruster: >> Andreas Färber <afaer...@suse.de> writes: >> >>> Am 31.05.2012 13:17, schrieb Igor Mammedov: >>>> On 05/31/2012 12:16 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote: >>>>> Il 31/05/2012 10:30, Markus Armbruster ha scritto: >>>>>>>> Makes much sense, but maybe it should be done in OBJECT() cast? Assert >>>>>>>> when we do OBJECT(NULL). >>>>>> In my opinion, OBJECT(p) where p is a null pointer is perfectly valid >>>>>> and should yield a null pointer. >>>>> >>>>> Perhaps object_dynamic_cast and object_dynamic_cast_assert should do the >>>>> same? >>>>> >>>> >>>> or better object_dynamic_cast should return NULL if obj is NULL, >>>> after all it's expected that it may return NULL >>> >>> That's what I was suggesting: I think that we should define "NULL is not >>> of type TYPE_FOO" and thus have the ..._is_... functions return false, >>> and have the ..._cast_assert assert. >> >> Is it? > > See http://www.mail-archive.com/qemu-devel@nongnu.org/msg113922.html > >> Igor: object_dynamic_cast should return NULL if obj is NULL, >> >> You: have the ..._cast_assert assert [on null argument, I presume] >> >> Doesn't sound like the same suggestion to me :) > > I'll let you to your opinion. :) However, my opinion is that
My question isn't about a difference of opinions between us two. It's about Igor writing "X should do Y", and you replying "Yes, that's what I was suggesting, X should do !Y". There's a misunderstanding there, and it could well be mine. So I ask. [...]