[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: emacs-26 c87d04e: Avoid aborts in 'md5'

From: Eli Zaretskii
Subject: Re: emacs-26 c87d04e: Avoid aborts in 'md5'
Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2018 05:39:00 +0200

> Cc: address@hidden, address@hidden, address@hidden
> From: Paul Eggert <address@hidden>
> Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2018 14:14:46 -0800
> On 02/28/2018 12:35 PM, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > That's not what I meant.  I meant that as long as the code is frozen
> > in its current form, nothing is gained by omitting 'else'.
> I'm puzzled, since my patch inserts 'else', and yet you appear to be 
> objecting to it on the grounds that nothing is gained by omitting 
> 'else'. I must be misunderstanding.

"Nothing is gained" was Andreas's argument, not mine.

> For the case we're talking about, it's not possible for the object to be 
> a string, so although it might be appropriate to have an eassert 
> (STRINGP (...)) to verify that the impossible does not happen (to help 
> future-proof the code, say), we shouldn't need a runtime check in 
> production code.

I don't want a function called from half a dozen places, which
generates a string from at least 3 different object types, to become a
cause for an assertion violation or worse.  It is a large and
not-so-simple function, where drawing such conclusions could yield

So let's please stop this particular bike-shedding and leave the code
alone.  There's nothing wrong with it.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]