Coverity objected to several similar cases in this code in which I'd
checked a pointer for NULL after already having done things to it. I
think all the cases are benign, in that (as the comments tersely
mention) those checks could only fail if the unifontsel system had got
_really_ confused, in which case probably some other bug would have
been on the point of manifesting anyway. But Coverity has a point
anyway: if I'm _going_ to check those values for NULL, let's check
them consistently.