More fun with MSDN searching...
-
I wouldn't of thought about it either... ...but then, come to think about it, I'm new and almost totally self-taught. I have a built-in exception.
You ever get that PictureBox code to work without formatting your HDD? :rolleyes: :-D
Hawaian shirts and shorts work too in Summer. People assume you're either a complete nut (in which case not a worthy target) or so damn good you don't need to worry about camouflage... -Anna-Jayne Metcalfe on Paintballing
-
Daniel Desormeaux wrote: Of course, don't you? Or do you blindly write to a file and let your code puke all over the user when it does run out of disk space? Actually no, because I never write to files on the HDD... if I were the one doing the I/O then yeah, sure...but from what it looks like, they were using a method in the framework that temporarily does disk I/O to compile stuff. How on earth would you trap for that type of thing? I wouldn't. I wouldn't even have thought to catch IOExceptions.
Hawaian shirts and shorts work too in Summer. People assume you're either a complete nut (in which case not a worthy target) or so damn good you don't need to worry about camouflage... -Anna-Jayne Metcalfe on Paintballing
> Actually no, because I never write to files on the HDD... if I were the one > doing the I/O then yeah, sure...but from what it looks like, they were > using a method in the framework that temporarily does disk I/O to compile > stuff. How on earth would you trap for that type of thing? I wouldn't. I > wouldn't even have thought to catch IOExceptions. I'm no expert on .NET (nor exceptions), but if you're calling a function that might at one point or another throw an exception, it's still your responsibility as the caller to trap it and not simply let yourself crash...that's why docs mention that "this function might throw the following exceptions"...