Returning an error would certainly be much cleaner than a null pointer
reference.  I was so puzzled that I checked the API guide and my code
repeatly.  If no implementation is intended, why advertise it in the
guide?

So there is no way that I can remove any expired credential?



On Tue, 6 Jan 2004, Sam Hartman via RT wrote:

> Well, it is not really clear to me if this is a bug or missing code.
> We certainly don't implement remove_cred, so there is no way your test
> program could successfully remove a credential.
>
> Clearly we should eventually implement that code and its absence is a
> bug.
>
> Having the unimplemented API segfault definitely does draw the missing
> functionality to one's attention.  It's true that an assertion would
> be cleaner than a null pointer dereference.
> The alternative would be to return an error indicating the API is
> unimplemented.
>
>