Jochen Küpper writes:
> This might be rephrased shorter/better by a native speaker... Thinking
> of it, maybe it should even go into the documentation.
Okay, I've added some notes to the documentation for those functions.
--
Brian Gough
Network Theory Ltd,
Publishing the GSL Manual - http://w
John D Lamb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Brian Gough wrote:
>> Jochen Küpper writes:
>>> Shouldn't the GSL free-routines be changed like the following patch?
>> My thinking on that was that for most people calling the free()
>> functions on a null pointer is usually an error rather than by desig
Brian Gough wrote:
> Jochen Küpper writes:
> > > I checked the source code for gsl_matrix_free and it will fail if passed
> > > a null pointer.
> >
> > Shouldn't the GSL free-routines be changed like the following patch?
>
> My thinking on that was that for most people calling the free()
> fun
Jochen Küpper writes:
> > I checked the source code for gsl_matrix_free and it will fail if passed
> > a null pointer.
>
> Shouldn't the GSL free-routines be changed like the following patch?
My thinking on that was that for most people calling the free()
functions on a null pointer is usuall
X-posted and Followup-To: GSL discuss
John D Lamb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Jochen Küpper wrote:
>>> gsl_matrix_alloc and gsl_matrix free behave like alloc and free and
>>> so I guess gsl_matrix_alloc returns 0 on failure and gsl_matrix_free
>>> should not be called with a null pointer.
[..
Jochen Küpper wrote:
>> gsl_matrix_alloc and gsl_matrix free behave like alloc and free and
>> so I guess gsl_matrix_alloc returns 0 on failure and gsl_matrix_free
>> should not be called with a null pointer.
>>
>
> Actually it should be ok to call free with NULL, just not with any
> other inv
