They're in the edit. Precedence of code-flow indicators (I said "code-syntactics" in my original quote, that's wrong, sorry) are more important to me, than keep

They're in the edit. Precedence of code-flow indicators (I said "code-syntactics" in my original quote, that's wrong, sorry) are more important to me, than keeping away redundancies. What I am advocating for, is "Before you work on a pointer, check its validity", regardless of what follows after. It's just a general guideline, do it, even if you think it's senseless and redundant. Ever since I've adopted those basics, I've virtually reduced my problems with pointers to zero. There's danger in accidentally not null-checking, but none in accidentally double-checking. Therefore, the implementation should take care of this (too), or at least consider implications. I can't really take risks there. The original author of the article is asking me to "stop" this, which could put a lot of things at stake. No, thank you.