Re: Robust error handling, an error while handling another error

From:

Alberto Ganesh Barbati <AlbertoBarbati@libero.it>

Newsgroups:

comp.lang.c++.moderated

Date:

Wed, 29 Oct 2008 15:18:15 CST

Message-ID:

<RLUNk.180989$FR.468336@twister1.libero.it>

Matthias Berndt ha scritto:

The right attitude, here, is not asking what is "correct", but what is,
in the end, "most useful" to you and/or the user. Ok, you could inform
the user that a certain feature is broken and not to use it, instead of
having the application crash. So what? The user will probably yell at
you and stop using the feature.

Wouldn't it be more useful to make the application crash and let the
user send you a crash dump so that you can debug and possibly fix the
problem? The user will still yell at you, but at least he will know that
you care about fixing his problem.

That's not a very good argument. Why not fork a new process and generate
a core dump of the currently running one? Also, when the program
crashes, data might be lost, and a user will probably yell a lot more
about lost data than about a broken feature.

That wasn't an argument. It was an option.

Ganesh

--
[ See http://www.gotw.ca/resources/clcm.htm for info about ]
[ comp.lang.c++.moderated. First time posters: Do this! ]