On 6/11/2013 12:25 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Tue, 11 Jun 2013 14:38:51 -0400, Andrei Alexandrescu
<seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org> wrote:
On 6/11/13 1:01 PM, Lars T. Kyllingstad wrote:
As in a module destructor? Isn't it better to let the error pass
silently rather than throwing an exception that can't be caught?
It will not be caught but will cause the entire program to print a diagnostic
and exit with a nonzero error code, which is useful.
How exactly is this useful?
I used to entertain myself and friends by setting up unix so the disk is nearly
full, and then trying various commands that produced output, and sending the
output to the disk.
Because so many C programs fail to check for failed output, all kinds of
entertaining random things would happen.
