4 ms·

Don’t write C++ like C and cleanup will be guaranteed by RAII.

• couchand 7y ago
  Yep, RAII is an eminently reasonable way to address the narrow question of cleanup. In fact, that's how idiomatic Rust code would handle it, too. That still leaves the general question of how to tell what errors a function may alert you to. Sanity suggests including it in a type signature, either in the return type or with checked exceptions. From what I've seen, the much more common solution in exception-using code is to ignore or forget the possibility of error.
  • quotemstr 7y ago
    > Sanity suggests including it in a type signature, either in the return type or with checked exceptions Yet basically all of Rust's std::io propagates just io::Result<T>, which is Result<T, io::Error>, where io::Error is a generic result that could be anything vaguely related to the outside world. It's as useful as writing "throws Exception" in Java. C# gets along fine in practice using unchecked exceptions everywhere. Your point would be stronger if, say, File::Create specifically said it could fail only with things like disk-full, file-exists, and so on. But all it actually says is "this can fail". The information richness you're describing does not exist in practice.
    • roblabla 7y ago
      The problem with File::create is that it must interoperate with the existing OSes. And it turns out, File::create can fail for many many reasons. Your file can be on disk, it can be remotely accessible on the network, it can be virtual, etc... And the OS can return just about any error. Linux lists the errors returned on each operation, but they're really just advisory and not exhaustive. So for io::Error, we're basically constrained by what the OS provides. Not much Rust can do about it, I'm afraid.
      • deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]