Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!uwm.edu!psuvax1!rutgers!cmcl2!adm!smoke!gwyn From: gwyn@smoke.brl.mil (Doug Gwyn) Newsgroups: comp.std.c Subject: Re: bsearch of empty array Message-ID: <16176@smoke.brl.mil> Date: 17 May 91 03:54:30 GMT References: <16167@smoke.brl.mil> Organization: U.S. Army Ballistic Research Laboratory, APG, MD. Lines: 13 In article kers@hplb.hpl.hp.com (Chris Dollin) writes: >Now, which implementations have better ``quality'' - those that are happy with >a null pointer and no elements (where the meaning is ``obvious''), or those >that object (and hence force your code to be more portable) .... :-) Well, it's a matter of opinion. The best implementation for some of us (who are trying to develop portable software) would be one that detects the nonportable usage (null pointer argument) and makes an appropriate squawking sound, so we can fix our programs now rather than much later when the bug causes mysterious behavior on another system. Others would say that the implementation should not waste any cycles testing for things that it is not required to handle. Still others would agree with you that it would be nice for the implementation to accept this usage.