Patrick Beard wrote:
> Now that this has been fixed, the correct Close() method will get called
> upon destruction, so we don't absolutely require explicit calls to
> Close(), but I would agree with others that it is good programming
> practice to use explicit Close() calls, as it leads to fewer surprises.
I agree, and in line with that, it would be nice if closes within a
destructor caused an warning, so the client code could be fixed.
However, from what I understand of what I've read, it appears there is
no method for determining whether a stream is already closed, so it
seems this is probably not possible.
--
Matthew Tuck: Software Developer & All-Round Nice Guy
My experience is that in general, if there's jobs programming
in it, it's not worth programming in.
Ultra Programming Language Project: http://www.box.net.au/~matty/ultra/
