I’m having a hard time seeing what is wrong with println actually checking for errors, unlike C in practice.https://twitter.com/myrrlyn/status/1170035475593064448 …
I think I recall someone bringing this up at the time, but people were generally uncomfortable with ignoring errors without explicit intent by the programmer, as a general principle. Maybe that was the wrong decision, but the library was designed conservatively.
-
-
I think "ignoring an error that's a valid condition runtime condition, not a programming error" is a much more conservative behavior than "aborting the program". But making intent explicit is better than either.
-
I found some related issues. This was discussed in 2014: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/13824 … And again in 2015: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/24821 … So yeah, that was the reasoning. I don’t really have much of an opinion as I can see both sides. Like I said I wouldn’t object to deprecating println.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.