Re: So You Think You Can Const?

On 1/13/25 04:08, David Brown wrote:

On 12/01/2025 23:45, Julio Di Egidio wrote:

On 12/01/2025 23:29, Waldek Hebisch wrote:

Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> wrote:

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

>

I would be happy for you to expand on why you say that.

>
Julio did not want to give his reasons,

>
I did give reasons, plenty actually: some people just cannot but keep
pretending.
>

 
Could you try posting them again?  I've looked through your posts here
again, and I haven't seen any clear justification for why you think
Ben's alternative structure for the code is "more error-prone".

After he claimed that he had already given his reasons, I went back and
reviewed his messages. He didn't provide any such reasons as a response
to Ben's request above, which I think is odd, but I think I found the
reasons he's referring to on the other branch of this thread:

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

... 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, ...