I agree my method is not perfect, I'm just saying that I try to use it as often as possible. It also makes me write simple, atomic functions that do only one thing and that return either a valid result or a single failure. And the calling code most of the time dies in case of failure.
I find it very rare that a function should fail but the calling code will behave differently depending on the error
In reply to Re: Re: The art of error handling
by mirod
in thread The art of error handling
by markjugg
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |