From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail
From: "Richard M. Stallman" <rms@gnu.org>
Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel
Subject: Re: The new "pp" command in gud is no longer so dangerous...
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 15:49:17 -0500
Message-ID: <E1EaJMD-0000op-Mx@fencepost.gnu.org>
References: <m34q6lxuq4.fsf@kfs-l.imdomain.dk>
	<E1Ea5F2-0002Ga-1G@fencepost.gnu.org>
	<m3acgc3nn4.fsf@kfs-l.imdomain.dk>
Reply-To: rms@gnu.org
NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15
X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1131655865 26829 80.91.229.2 (10 Nov 2005 20:51:05 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 20:51:05 +0000 (UTC)
Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org
Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Nov 10 21:51:05 2005
Return-path: <emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165])
	by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43)
	id 1EaJMa-0007Sf-52
	for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 10 Nov 2005 21:49:40 +0100
Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43)
	id 1EaJMZ-0000Kx-JL
	for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 10 Nov 2005 15:49:39 -0500
Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1EaJML-0000Gq-2A
	for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 10 Nov 2005 15:49:25 -0500
Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1EaJMJ-0000F4-98
	for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 10 Nov 2005 15:49:24 -0500
Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EaJMI-0000Ei-Vi
	for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 10 Nov 2005 15:49:23 -0500
Original-Received: from [199.232.76.164] (helo=fencepost.gnu.org)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1EaJMJ-0006BA-80
	for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 10 Nov 2005 15:49:23 -0500
Original-Received: from rms by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.34)
	id 1EaJMD-0000op-Mx; Thu, 10 Nov 2005 15:49:21 -0500
Original-To: storm@cua.dk (Kim F. Storm)
In-reply-to: <m3acgc3nn4.fsf@kfs-l.imdomain.dk> (storm@cua.dk)
X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." <emacs-devel.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-devel>,
	<mailto:emacs-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/pipermail/emacs-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:emacs-devel@gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:emacs-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-devel>,
	<mailto:emacs-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org
Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org
Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:45695
Archived-At: <http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel/45695>

    > It would be better to handle that case by treating all values
    > as ok, rather than treating all values as bad.
    > At least that would work as well as the old code.

    Well, there is no "old code" in this case.

It is useless to have the button and make it do nothing.
Meanwhile, just testing for a valid data type ought to enable
it to avoid most crashes.  So wouldn't it be better, in the
case where you can't test the pointer's validity, to assume
"yes" instead of assume "no"?