On 6/15/2013 3:24 AM, deadalnix wrote:
On Saturday, 15 June 2013 at 10:08:38 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 6/15/2013 3:04 AM, deadalnix wrote:
On Saturday, 15 June 2013 at 09:48:59 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 6/15/2013 1:36 AM, deadalnix wrote:
The solution that consist into flushing in main at the end of the program is
problematic as well. At this point, from programmer perspective, the
program ran
fun and is terminated successfully. Still the whole stuff will explode
under its
feet, in the runtime. That isn't something we should promote.
If the output failed to happen, how could the program have successfully
behaved as intended?
From programmer's perspective.
I'm sorry, that makes no sense to me.
That is because you aren't reading what is written. See 2/
Defaulting to ignoring errors and blithely proceeding is not usually
considered a best practice.
I have never written that. That explains 1/
I have no idea what you're talking about.
