mirror of
https://github.com/isocpp/CppCoreGuidelines.git
synced 2024-03-22 13:30:58 +08:00
Fix typos in section E: Error handling
E.25: Fix several typos E.25: Add missing comma E.2: Add missing verb
This commit is contained in:
parent
9987d835b9
commit
185f70781d
|
@ -12860,7 +12860,7 @@ If `use()` could handle the failure to construct `bar` it can take control using
|
|||
In either case, `Foo`'s constructor correctly destroys constructed members before passing control to whatever tried to create a `Foo`.
|
||||
Note that there is no return value that could contain an error code.
|
||||
|
||||
The `File_handle` constructor might defined like this:
|
||||
The `File_handle` constructor might be defined like this:
|
||||
|
||||
File_handle::File_handle(const string& name, const string& mode)
|
||||
:f{fopen(name.c_str(), mode.c_str())}
|
||||
|
@ -13435,9 +13435,9 @@ In the absence of appropriate time estimation tools, this is hard to guarantee f
|
|||
Such systems (e.g. flight control software) typically also ban the use of dynamic (heap) memory.
|
||||
|
||||
So, the primary guideline for error handling is "use exceptions and [RAII](#Re-raii)."
|
||||
This section deals with the cases where you either do not have an efficient implementation or exceptions
|
||||
This section deals with the cases where you either do not have an efficient implementation of exceptions,
|
||||
or have such a rat's nest of old-style code
|
||||
(e.g., lots of pointers, ill-defined ownership, and lots of unsystematic error handling based on tests of errors codes)
|
||||
(e.g., lots of pointers, ill-defined ownership, and lots of unsystematic error handling based on tests of error codes)
|
||||
that it is infeasible to introduce simple and systematic exception handling.
|
||||
|
||||
Before condemning exceptions or complaining too much about their cost, consider examples of the use of [error codes](#Re-no-throw-codes).
|
||||
|
@ -13465,7 +13465,7 @@ If we cannot throw an exception, we can simulate this RAII style of resource han
|
|||
return 0; // zero indicates "good"
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
The problem is of course that the caller now have to remember to test the return value.
|
||||
The problem is of course that the caller now has to remember to test the return value.
|
||||
|
||||
**See also**: [Discussion](#Sd-???).
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
Loading…
Reference in New Issue
Block a user