From: Jon Kalb (jonkalb_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-07-29 12:20:34
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Maddock [mailto:john_maddock_at_[hidden]]
> Sent: Monday, July 29, 2002 3:57 AM
> To: boost_at_[hidden]
> Subject: Re: [boost] yet another regex partial match bug
>
> To put
> it another way, why on earth would you want to waste CPU
> cycles trying a partial match against a NULL string? The
> fact that it is NULL tells you that you need some more input
> before any decision can be taken anyway.
Because it might make the code simpiler? Consider:
delete ptr;
vs
if (ptr)
{
delete ptr;
}
Why on earth would you want to waste CPU cycles deleting a ptr that is
null? The fact that it is null tells you that you don't need to delete
it.