From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-01-26 11:01:03
From: "Thomas Maeder" <maeder_at_[hidden]>
> Am 2002.01.26 12:53 schrieb(en) Peter Dimov:
> > > But in general, the success of fclose() should be checked. Can
> > > shared_ptr be used then?
> > Should it?
> Yes (in general). It's an operation that can fail. There are programs
> that have to behave differently if fclose() succeeds from when it fails.
Would you please provide a specific example or two. I've trouble following
In general, the problem lies not in shared_ptr, but in the destructor
function that can fail. This function should be split in two, a function
that can fail (but does not destroy) and a destructor that never fails. This
is, of course, not possible in the general case and the usual way to "solve"
the problem is to ignore the failure, which - surprisingly - works pretty
well in practice.
If we return to our fclose example, the "can fail but does not destroy"
mechanism is fflush.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk