RE: [boost] yet another regex partial match bug

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.