On 28-07-22, 11:11, Kent Gibson wrote: > The comment is: > > // SAFETY: The string is guaranteed to be valid here. > > and that is whether there a NULL check or not, so it isn't clear what > the source of the guarantee is. > I would prefer: > > // SAFETY: The string is guaranteed to be valid by the C API. I believe this is what we settled with now. I will make updates accordingly. > and updating the C header to explicitly state it returns a valid pointer. > It currently says "Pointer to a human-readable string" which could be > taken to mean valid, but making it "Valid pointer to..." would more > clearly place the onus of it actually being valid on the C library. I will let you guys handle the C API :) -- viresh