Try .. Catch with no Exception needed.

Thread view:

Enable EMail Alerts

Start New Thread

Thread rating:

RP - 24 Jan 2008 13:56 GMT

In certain code blocks I don't want to do anything when an error is
raised. I simply want that application must remain stable instead of
crash. For the following code, is there a way to ignore declaration of
Exception ex:

try
{
//do somthing
}
catch (Exception ex)
{ //do nothing };

Since I am not using ex, it raises too many warnings.

Reply to this Message

sloan - 24 Jan 2008 14:08 GMT

try

{

}

finally

{

}

> In certain code blocks I don't want to do anything when an error is
> raised. I simply want that application must remain stable instead of
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>
> Since I am not using ex, it raises too many warnings.

Reply to this Message

David Anton - 24 Jan 2008 14:32 GMT

The application will still crash. You need an empty 'catch' block, not an
empty 'finally' block. There is absolutely no case where an empty 'finally'
block would be useful.

Signature

http://www.tangiblesoftwaresolutions.com
C++ to C#
C++ to VB
C++ to Java
Instant C#: VB to C#
Instant VB: C# to VB
Instant C++ VB Edition: VB to C++/CLI
Instant C++ C# Edition: C# to C++/CLI

> try
>
[quoted text clipped - 21 lines]
> >
> > Since I am not using ex, it raises too many warnings.

Reply to this Message

Peter Bromberg [C# MVP] - 24 Jan 2008 16:25 GMT

Good "catch". :-)

Signature

Site: http://www.eggheadcafe.com
UnBlog: http://petesbloggerama.blogspot.com
MetaFinder: http://www.blogmetafinder.com

> The application will still crash. You need an empty 'catch' block, not an
> empty 'finally' block. There is absolutely no case where an empty 'finally'
[quoted text clipped - 25 lines]
> > >
> > > Since I am not using ex, it raises too many warnings.

Reply to this Message

PO - 24 Jan 2008 14:08 GMT

You can use :

try{
}
catch(Exception){
}

no warnings ;-)

Reply to this Message

KWienhold - 24 Jan 2008 14:17 GMT

> > In certain code blocks I don't want to do anything when an error is
> > raised. I simply want that application must remain stable instead of
[quoted text clipped - 19 lines]
>
> no warnings ;-)

If you don't care about the type of exception you catch you can even
write:
try
{
}
catch
{
}

Reply to this Message

Nicholas Paldino [.NET/C# MVP] - 24 Jan 2008 16:26 GMT

It should be noted that if you catch an Exception (or just have a catch
statement) that your application won't necessarily be "stable". In catching
all exceptions (instead of just ones you know are going to be thrown) you
are corrupting your application state to some degree, and if you aren't
fastidious about defining the boundaries of your application, you will have
unexpected errors because of exceptions that were thrown and ignored in
other areas.

In other words, be very careful about proceeding in this manner. There
are reasons that exceptions are thrown, and you should ignore them at your
own peril.

Signature

- Nicholas Paldino [.NET/C# MVP]
- mvp@spam.guard.caspershouse.com

Reply to this Message

Lasse Vågsæther Karlsen - 25 Jan 2008 10:21 GMT

> It should be noted that if you catch an Exception (or just have a catch
> statement) that your application won't necessarily be "stable". In catching
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> are reasons that exceptions are thrown, and you should ignore them at your
> own peril.

For some reason an image of an old map popped into my head containing
"Here there be dragons!" :)

Signature

Lasse Vågsæther Karlsen
mailto:lasse@vkarlsen.no
http://presentationmode.blogspot.com/
PGP KeyID: 0xBCDEA2E3

Reply to this Message

Try .. Catch with no Exception needed.

Free Magazines