@tonyw
There are two schools of thought here, though: one is that the programmer (and the OS) should be protected against all input that causes bad results (I say it that way rather then "invalid input"). This means testing for null pointers, zero sizes, etc, etc.
I understand that too much protection on the part of the OS can lead to careless programming, with developers relying on the system to make amends for their bad coding. But BOOPSI is a higher-level API than Intuition, and we have all those classes encapsulating lowlevel/internal stuff for the very reason of increasing safety. If most AmigaOS library functions are now NULL pointer-safe, I don't see why a BOOPSI class couldn't protect you from creating a dangerous object.
I fear that adding such tests will not be taken as a high-priority task.
The test takes about four lines of code, but if there's a philosophy problem (i.e. the Dev Team sees this as too much protection) then please make them close the bugzilla entry as irrelevant. It's better to know right away (and implement the check on my part), rather than wait years for a feature that won't materialize.
if you give me an email address, I'll send you a copy of the source.
It's: dan dot jedlicka @ seznam dot cz - thank you!
