> On Tue, 2003-03-04 at 19:10, Gary R. Van Sickle wrote: > > > > How about just replace it with a flush() member? > > As long as you track down *all* the exit points and ensure they call it. >
Well, that's another issue (i.e. if they didn't call exit() before, they're already broken). > Safer IMO to > a) fix static object destructors Wouldn't know where to start, but yeah that should be fixed regardless. > or > b) exit via the log object. > "Safer" or "preferable"? I disagree that exit()ing somehwhere in the guts of an object is a good way to go, especially when that class's raisin de etre is not exiting, but logging. But I've got a message loop that's hosed, so this is all pretty much moot at this point. -- Gary R. Van Sickle Brewer. Patriot.