###I would argue the exact opposite.

Explicitly closing a stream is probably not what you want to do. This is because when you close() the stream there is the potential for exceptions to be thrown. Thus when you explicitly close a file stream it is an indication you both want to close the stream and explicitly handle any errors that can result (exceptions or bad-bits) from the closing of the stream (or potentially you are saying if this fails I want to fail fast (exception being allowed to kill the application)).

If you don't care about the errors (ie you are not going to handle them anyway). You should just let the destructor do the closing. This is because the destructor will catch and discard any exceptions thus allowing code to flow normally. When dealing with the closing of a file this is what you normally want to do (if the closing fails does it matter?).

I would argue the exact opposite.

Explicitly closing a stream is probably not what you want to do. This is because when you close() the stream there is the potential for exceptions to be thrown. Thus when you explicitly close a file stream it is an indication you both want to close the stream and explicitly handle any errors that can result (exceptions or bad-bits) from the closing of the stream (or potentially you are saying if this fails I want to fail fast (exception being allowed to kill the application)).

If you don't care about the errors (ie you are not going to handle them anyway). You should just let the destructor do the closing. This is because the destructor will catch and discard any exceptions thus allowing code to flow normally. When dealing with the closing of a file this is what you normally want to do (if the closing fails does it matter?).

###I would argue the exact opposite.

Explicitly closing a stream is probably not what you want to do. This is because when you close() the stream there is the potential for exceptions to be thrown. Thus when you explicitly close a file stream it is an indication you both want to close the stream and explicitly handle any errors that can result from the closing of the stream (or potentially you are saying if this fails I want to fail fast (exception being allowed to kill the application)).

If you don't care about the errors (ie you are not going to handle them anyway). You should just let the destructor do the closing. This is because the destructor will catch and discard any exceptions thus allowing code to flow normally. When dealing with the closing of a file this is what you normally want to do (if the closing fails does it matter?).

###I would argue the exact opposite.

Explicitly closing a stream is probably not what you want to do. This is because when you close() the stream there is the potential for exceptions to be thrown. Thus when you explicitly close a file stream it is an indication you both want to close the stream and explicitly handle any errors that can result (exceptions or bad-bits) from the closing of the stream (or potentially you are saying if this fails I want to fail fast (exception being allowed to kill the application)).

If you don't care about the errors (ie you are not going to handle them anyway). You should just let the destructor do the closing. This is because the destructor will catch and discard any exceptions thus allowing code to flow normally. When dealing with the closing of a file this is what you normally want to do (if the closing fails does it matter?).