Edit Question - KnowledgeHub

Title Body

Disclaimer, I'm from a Java background. I don't do much C#. There's a great deal of transfer between the two worlds, but of course there are differences and one is in the way Exceptions tend to be thought about. I recently answered a C# question suggesting that under some circstances it's reasonable to do this: try { some work } catch (Exeption e) { commonExceptionHandler(); } (The reasons why are immaterial). I got a response that I don't quite understand: until .NET 4.0, it's very bad to catch Exception. It means you catch various low-level fatal errors and so disguise bugs. It also means that in the event of some kind of corruption that triggers such an exception, any open finally blocks on the stack will be executed, so even if the callExceptionReporter fuunction tries to log and quit, it may not even get to that point (the finally blocks may throw again, or cause more corruption, or delete something important from the disk or database). May I'm more confused than I realise, but I don't agree with some of that. Please would other folks comment. I understand that there are many low level Exceptions we don't want to swallow. My commonExceptionHandler() function could reasonably rethrow those. This seems consistent with this answer to a related question. Which does say "Depending on your context it can be acceptable to use catch(...), providing the exception is re-thrown." So I conclude using catch (Exception ) is not always evil, silently swallowing certain exceptions is. The phrase "Until .NET 4 it is very bad to Catch Exception" What changes in .NET 4? IS this a reference to AggregateException, which may give us some new things to do with exceptions we catch, but I don't think ch

Tags (comma-separated) Cancel