Re: Small technicality on dynarray

[<HBB...@t-...>]

Daniel J Sebald wrote:
> Hans-Bernhard Bröker wrote:
>> Daniel J Sebald wrote:

>>> That is, it seems it isn't possible to initialize the dynarray to
>>> size zero.

>> There's no point in doing that, so why would you want to?

> Because in the patch I'm doing I'm placing a dynarray in the plot
> struct but it may not necessarily be used if no data is read from a
> file, but instead the plot type is FUNC.

So what would be the problem with delaying the init_dynarray() call 
until you actually need the thing?

>> A dynarray of size zero is about as useful as a pointer to nothing.

> Why assign memory if it isn't going to be used?  

By not doing it yet.  Do it when you know you'll need it.

>>> It'd nice if one could. It's not of great importance, but for
>>> such a fundamental utility "consistency" (lack of term) would be
>>> nice.

>> Consistency with what?

> Again, the issue is that such familiarity with the dynarray code is
> assumed (e.g., "Why set to zero?  That's silly.") that the test
> *which is not failsafe as I argued* seems extraneous.

The test may not be failsafe, but it's necessary, and correct as it is. 
  Among other things, have a look at free_dynarray().  The state this 
leaves the dynarray struct in has to be tested against, as well as the 
automatic all-zeroes state of the struct.