I hadn't read your post. I got tired of answering your questions going in 10 different directions. I have now.
I'd use SvPOK over segfaults as an error check.
| [reply] |
I'd use SvPOK over segfaults as an error check.
You are, of course, welcome to do that. But there is no good reason to.
If SvPOK isn't set, you haven't pack'ed the scalar passed. And that isn't a data error that might occasionally arise at runtime. It is, (can only be!), a program logic error that will happen the first time, and every time, the function is called, until it is corrected.
I hadn't read your post.
So you respond to posts without reading. Too tired to read. Not too tired to flame. That explains a great deal, 60-odd levels of it.
Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
"Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".
In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.
| [reply] |
If SvPOK isn't set, you haven't pack'ed the scalar passed. And that isn't a data error that might occasionally arise at runtime.
Wait, what? segfaulting is ok, and SvPOK isn't? SvPOK will trigger at the at the same time as your trap. You can't argue SvPOK will give false positives while promoting the segfault trap.
Too tired to read not too tired to flame.
Nice projection. I was answering your questions. You know, those with which you admitted were some kind of trap. Those with explicit insults. Those you kept repeating in giant bold letters after I had already answered them. (So who wasn't reading?) Yeah, I didn't want to go through that again.
bye.
Update: Additions.
| [reply] |