Aric Cyr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Ya, I thought about that after I sent my previous mail as well... an assert > would probably be more useful for checking "This". I also disagree that > "This" > is guaranteed to always be non-NULL. There really is no way you can force > policy how a user calls the function, so minimally checking (or aborting) on > NULL is a sane thing to do. It doesn't hurt the code, and catches potential > usage problems.
Not checking at all and crashing works just as well to catch problems, and doesn't hurt performance. There's no reason to add NULL checks unless there is a Windows app that depends on it. -- Alexandre Julliard [EMAIL PROTECTED]
