Re: [PATCH] mailinfo.c: move side-effects outside of assert

>>> This is obviously an improvement, but it makes me wonder if we should be
>>> doing:
>>>
>>>  if (!check_header(mi, &mi->inbody_header_accum, mi->s_hdr_data))
>>>     die("BUG: some explanation of why this can never happen");
>>>
>>> which perhaps documents the intended assumptions more clearly. A comment
>>> regarding the side effects might also be helpful.
>>
>> I wondered exactly the same thing myself.  I was hoping Jonathan would
>> pipe in here with some analysis about whether this is:
>>
>>   a) a super paranoid, just-in-case, can't really ever fail because by
>> the time we get to this code we've already effectively validated
>> everything that could cause check_header to return false in this case
>> ...
> The answer is "a". The only time that mi->inbody_header_accum is
> appended to is in check_inbody_header, and appending onto a blank
> mi->inbody_header_accum always happens when is_inbody_header is true
> (which guarantees a prefix that causes check_header to always return
> true).
>
> Peff's suggestion sounds reasonable to me, maybe with an error message
> like "BUG: inbody_header_accum, if not empty, must always contain a
> valid in-body header".