Re: So You Think You Can Const?

On 1/9/25 21:51, Julio Di Egidio wrote:

On 10/01/2025 03:14, Julio Di Egidio wrote:

...

Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> writes:
>

On 09/01/2025 02:09, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>

Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> writes:

...

  static AvlTree_t const *AvlTree_node(
  void const *pk, AvlTree_t const *pL, AvlTree_t const *pR
  ) {
  AvlTree_t *pT = malloc(*pT);
  if (pT) {
  pT->pk = pk;
  pT->pL = pL;
  pT->pR = pR;
  }
  return pT;
  }
I'm not going to "make a case" for this (though I will if you
want!) -- I just think it helps to see lots of different styles.

>
That is *more* error prone,

...

... check the return value as soon as the function returns a possibly
null pointer or an error value is certainly more widely applicable,
and quite less error prone, especially if it's

>
I meant: immediately check the return value and bail out if needed.
The other approach does not even simplify on the clean-up, by the way...

The code you're criticizing as more error prone does check the return
value as soon as the function returns, and bails out if needed. It just
bails out through the missing else clause rather than from the if-clause.

It does requires code to be indented farther than the other approach. I
have avoided writing code like that for that reason, particularly when
there's a lot of code inside the it statement's controlled blocks -but
not because it's error prone.