Re: So You Think You Can Const?

On 10/01/2025 00:23, Ben Bacarisse 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;
>
      pT = malloc(sizeof(AvlTree_t));
>
      if (!pT) {
          return NULL;
      }
>
      pT->pk = pk;
      pT->pL = pL;
      pT->pR = pR;
>
      return pT;
}

Just on a side issue, I prefer to make tests like this positive so I'd
write:
   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,

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

I would be happy for you to eat shit and die.

all the more so if it's not a 5 liner...

Except that you cannot, so you must be a piece of nazi-retarded fraudulent vile shit.
-Julio