>>IMHO a good program should handle all errors, including malloc failure, in a sane manner. It really is less painful that people that refuse to do it think.
> What kind of handling are we talking about? xmalloc-style handling (which makes sense), "malloc masturbation" (where all calls to malloc are surrounded with explicit checks) or "really robust handling" (where you really handle all memory errors?)
In the context of your reply, I'm with you... most of the time. xmalloc() makes sense for most _programs_ (although not all of them). But, if we're discussing libraries (the subject of the article), then "really robust handling" is _the_ option.