Fw: Re: AW: AW: octstr_compare

Begin forwarded message:

Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2004 14:23:04 +0300
From: Yury Mikhienko <[email protected]>
To: Jorg Pommnitz <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: AW: AW: octstr_compare


On Wed, 10 Mar 2004 11:42:14 +0100
Jorg Pommnitz <[email protected]> wrote:

> > But if I use disable_assertion option?
> 
> If you need this at all, then you should handle the NULL case before the
> seems_valid tests. And you should cover all the cases, e.g.
> (octstr1 == NULL) && (octstr2 == NULL) -> true
> (octstr1 == NULL) && (octstr2 != NULL) -> false
> (octstr1 != NULL) && (octstr2 == NULL) -> false
> 
> Than do the seems_valid tests and the normal code.
> 
> But seriously, I doubt that this is a good idea. Just don't compare invalid
> octstr
> or, if you really need this, than write a wrapper:
> 
> int
> octstr_compare_null_safe (octstr1, octstr2)
> {
>   if (!octsr1 && !octsr2)
> 	return 1;
>   else if ((!octsr1 && octstr2) || (octstr1 && !octstr2))
> 	return 0;
>   else
>      return octstr_compare (octstr1, octstr2);
> }
> 
> This way you do not pollute the general code.
> 

May be that:

int
 octstr_compare_null_safe (octstr1, octstr2)
 {
   if (!octstr1 && !octstr2)
 	return 0; //octstr1 == octstr2 == NULL
   else if (!octsr1 && octstr2)
 	return -1; //(octstr1 == NULL) < (octstr2 != NULL)
   else if (octsr1 && !octstr2)
 	return 1; //(octstr1 != NULL) > (octstr2 == NULL)
   else
      return octstr_compare (octstr1, octstr2);
 }

-- 
 
Best regards,
Yury Mikhienko.
IT ERP group head, ZAO "Mobikom-Kavkaz"
tel: (8632) 704188


-- 
 
Best regards,
Yury Mikhienko.
IT ERP group head, ZAO "Mobikom-Kavkaz"
tel: (8632) 704188