Perl is worse!

[Martijn Faassen]

Steve Lamb <grey at despair.rpglink.com> wrote:
[snip]
>>Losing accumulated logs, and/or logging false data, would be utter
>>disasters. 

>     You're speaking in absolute terms on something which is best determined by
> the end user, not the language.  To me, for a lot of the logs I process, no,
> it isn't a disaster.  It isn't even a minor annoyance.  It is just a speck of
> dust on a rather large desk that I couldn't care less about.  Having the logs
> processing puke on me, or any other of dozens of applications I can think of,
> because of a inconsiquential burp in the data is the real annoyance.

Then catch your exceptions and skip those records. It's very easy, it's
explicit, and at least the rest of us won't get in trouble when we want
our bugs to be ignored as bugs *do* matter.

>>bug is clearly the priority; if subtly-false data were being logged
>>instead, 

>     Uhm, logs processing process logs for one of a variety of uses.  IE, the
> data has already been logged, how can it be falsely logged again?

If you're not worried about such data, then you don't have to worry about
any exceptions to be raised when you use int() either, and you don't
need to have any code to handle exceptions either.

Regards,

Martijn