On 2006-05-02 13:25:30 -0700, Brendan Cully wrote: > I don't see a good reason to deliberately use safe_free > instead of FREE at the moment (or vv). Is there one? One reason is that FREE just behaves like free, in that you don't need to put in the & operator. But that's about it. I don't feel particularly strongly either way, but do think the code should be consistent. -- Thomas Roessler · Personal soap box at <http://log.does-not-exist.org/>.