effect of free()

[Scott Amspoker]

Someone whose name I keep losing writes:
>I do sort of object to the sequence you imply here: first, you did
>not properly attribute it. Second, you made it appear that I said that
>my code never dealt properly with freed pointers. I doubt that your
>intent was malicious, but I'd appreciate more care in the future.

I apologize for the confusion about source of the orginal quote, which was
from neither you (whoever you are) nor me.  For some reason, everytime
I try to followup one of your postings my 'rn' program aborts back to
the shell.  This happens only with your postings (???).  What you are
reading now is not a "followup" per se but an attempt to look like a
followup via the Save command.  I obviously did a poor job at it.

>You missed the point. I did *not* say that my programs never
>referenced a pointer after it was freed. Don't I wish. What I'm saying
>is that I never *designed* a program to do that.

Then we are in agreement.  How would you feel, then, if your ported
your code to some machine that wasn't so forgiving; and when you
complained, someone told you that you were lazy and shouldn't have
written the code that way in the first place?  None of us want to
pay so dearly for something so trivial whether we intended it or
not.  Remember, we're talking about more than free() calls here.

BTW: Since I am having so much trouble with your postings (not
me personally :-) but 'rn' is having trouble.) I will have to
avoid further followups.  If we have more to discuss let's try
e-mail.

-- 
Scott Amspoker
Basis International, Albuquerque, NM
(505) 345-5232