On Saturday, 15 June 2013 at 09:48:59 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> On 6/15/2013 1:36 AM, deadalnix wrote:
>> The solution that consist into flushing in main at the end of the program is
>> problematic as well. At this point, from programmer perspective, the program ran
>> fun and is terminated successfully. Still the whole stuff will explode under its
>> feet, in the runtime. That isn't something we should promote.
>
> If the output failed to happen, how could the program have successfully behaved as intended?

From programmer's perspective.

On 6/15/2013 3:04 AM, deadalnix wrote:
> On Saturday, 15 June 2013 at 09:48:59 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
>> On 6/15/2013 1:36 AM, deadalnix wrote:
>>> The solution that consist into flushing in main at the end of the program is
>>> problematic as well. At this point, from programmer perspective, the program ran
>>> fun and is terminated successfully. Still the whole stuff will explode under its
>>> feet, in the runtime. That isn't something we should promote.
>>
>> If the output failed to happen, how could the program have successfully
>> behaved as intended?
>
>  From programmer's perspective.

I'm sorry, that makes no sense to me. In fact, this thread started out reporting an article by a programmer who was unhappy that the program exited normally but the output didn't happen.

Defaulting to ignoring errors and blithely proceeding is not usually considered a best practice.

On Saturday, 15 June 2013 at 10:08:38 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> On 6/15/2013 3:04 AM, deadalnix wrote:
>> On Saturday, 15 June 2013 at 09:48:59 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
>>> On 6/15/2013 1:36 AM, deadalnix wrote:
>>>> The solution that consist into flushing in main at the end of the program is
>>>> problematic as well. At this point, from programmer perspective, the program ran
>>>> fun and is terminated successfully. Still the whole stuff will explode under its
>>>> feet, in the runtime. That isn't something we should promote.
>>>
>>> If the output failed to happen, how could the program have successfully
>>> behaved as intended?
>>
>> From programmer's perspective.
>
> I'm sorry, that makes no sense to me.

That is because you aren't reading what is written. See 2/

> Defaulting to ignoring errors and blithely proceeding is not usually considered a best practice.

I have never written that. That explains 1/

On 6/15/13 12:04 PM, deadalnix wrote:
> On Saturday, 15 June 2013 at 09:48:59 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
>> On 6/15/2013 1:36 AM, deadalnix wrote:
>>> The solution that consist into flushing in main at the end of the
>>> program is
>>> problematic as well. At this point, from programmer perspective, the
>>> program ran
>>> fun and is terminated successfully. Still the whole stuff will
>>> explode under its
>>> feet, in the runtime. That isn't something we should promote.
>>
>> If the output failed to happen, how could the program have
>> successfully behaved as intended?
>
>  From programmer's perspective.

You may want to discuss alternative solutions in the bug report: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=10344

Thanks,

Andrei

On 6/15/2013 3:24 AM, deadalnix wrote:
> On Saturday, 15 June 2013 at 10:08:38 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
>> On 6/15/2013 3:04 AM, deadalnix wrote:
>>> On Saturday, 15 June 2013 at 09:48:59 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
>>>> On 6/15/2013 1:36 AM, deadalnix wrote:
>>>>> The solution that consist into flushing in main at the end of the program is
>>>>> problematic as well. At this point, from programmer perspective, the
>>>>> program ran
>>>>> fun and is terminated successfully. Still the whole stuff will explode
>>>>> under its
>>>>> feet, in the runtime. That isn't something we should promote.
>>>>
>>>> If the output failed to happen, how could the program have successfully
>>>> behaved as intended?
>>>
>>> From programmer's perspective.
>>
>> I'm sorry, that makes no sense to me.
>
> That is because you aren't reading what is written. See 2/
>
>> Defaulting to ignoring errors and blithely proceeding is not usually
>> considered a best practice.
>
> I have never written that. That explains 1/

I have no idea what you're talking about.