From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: erik quanstrom <quanstro@quanstro.net>
Date: Mon,  3 Jun 2013 09:02:24 -0400
To: 9fans@9fans.net
Message-ID: <4b62d76ce093e2671c186984dca965a3@brasstown.quanstro.net>
In-Reply-To: <201306031100.r53B0eCt025839@freefriends.org>
References: <61e54edafc804ce595b89710afdce80b@hamnavoe.com>
	<201306031100.r53B0eCt025839@freefriends.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [9fans] test(1) -older bug?
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 61a792e2-ead8-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

On Mon Jun  3 08:00:20 EDT 2013, arnold@skeeve.com wrote:
> Richard Miller <9fans@hamnavoe.com> wrote:
>
> > And the consequences of not freeing a few bytes of memory, in a command
> > which will exit a few microseconds later, would be ... ?
>
> The Code Correctness Police come and collect you and force you to
> program on Windows...  <ducks>

excellent points.  there is no consequence.  but conversely, there is
no penalty for free'ing the memory either.  given that, i prefer free'ing
the memory to be consistent with the rest of the source, and accept
cinap's bug as a bug.

of course you can say needless consistency is the hobgoblin of little
minds...

:-)

- erik