Once that happens, code will resume execution at the "catch". If there is a breakpoint within a function that's evaluated as part of a "when", that breakpoint will suspend execution before any stack unwinding occurs; by contrast, a breakpoint at a "catch" will only suspend execution after all finally handlers have run.
22 If there is a hierarchy of exceptions you can use the base class to catch all subclasses of exceptions. In the degenerate case you can catch all Java exceptions with:
try { WebId = new Guid(queryString["web"]); } catch (FormatException) { WebId = Guid.Empty; } catch (OverflowException) { WebId = Guid.Empty; } Is there a way to catch both exceptions and only set WebId = Guid.Empty once? The given example is rather simple, as it's only a GUID, but imagine code where you modify an object multiple times, and if one of the manipulations fails as expected, you ...
catch (Exception e, ExtendsRuntimeException re) { // common logic to handle both exceptions } Is it possible to avoid duplicating the handler code in each catch block?
I'm writing a shell script and need to check that a terminal app has been installed. I want to use a TRY/CATCH command to do this unless there is a neater way.
71 Best practice is that exception handling should never hide issues. This means that try-catch blocks should be extremely rare. There are 3 circumstances where using a try-catch makes sense. Always deal with known exceptions as low-down as you can. However, if you're expecting an exception it's usually better practice to test for it first.
I recently came across code written by a fellow programmer in which he had a try-catch statement inside a catch! Please forgive my inability to paste the actual code, but what he did was something
