Let's say we have a structure like so:
Try ' Outer try code, that can fail with more generic conditions, ' that I know less about and might not be able to handle Try ' Inner try code, that can fail with more specific conditions, ' that I probably know more about, and are likely to handle appropriately Catch innerEx as Exception ' Handle the inner exception End Try Catch outerEx as Exception ' Handle outer exception End Try
I have seen some opinions that nesting Try
blocks like this is discouraged, but I could not find any specific reasons.
Is this bad code? If so, why?
Nesting try-catch blocks severely impacts the readability of source code because it makes it to difficult to understand which block will catch which exception.
Yes, we can declare a try-catch block within another try-catch block, this is called nested try-catch block.
How to Avoid the Nesting? Extracting the nested part as a new method will always work for any arbitrarily nested Try-Catch-Finally block. So this is one trick that you can always use to improve the code.
As the name suggests, a try block within a try block is called nested try block in Java. This is needed when different blocks like outer and inner may cause different errors. To handle them, we need nested try blocks.
There are certain circumstances where they're a good idea, e.g. one try/catch for the whole method and another inside a loop as you want to handle the exception and continue processing the rest of a collection.
Really the only reason to do it is if you want to skip the bit that errored and carry on, instead of unwinding the stack and losing context. Opening multiple files in an editor is one example.
That said, exceptions should (as the name implies) be exceptional. A program should handle them but try to avoid them as part of normal execution flow. They're computationally expensive in most languages (Python being one notable exception).
One other technique which can be useful is catching specific exception types...
Try 'Some code to read from a file Catch ex as IOException 'Handle file access issues (possibly silently depending on usage) Catch ex as Exception ' Handle all other exceptions. ' If you've got a handler further up, just omit this Catch and let the ' exception propagate Throw End Try
We also use nested try/catches in our error handling routines...
Try Dim Message = String.Format("...", ) Try 'Log to database Catch ex As Exception 'Do nothing End Try Try 'Log to file Catch ex As Exception 'Do nothing End Try Catch ex As Exception 'Give up and go home End Try
I actually don't think there's anything inherently wrong about nested Try
/Catch
blocks, except that they can be difficult to navigate and are likely a sign that you could do some refactoring (the inner Try
/Catch
into its own method, for example).
But I do want to address this comment:
' Outer try code, that can fail with more generic conditions, ' that I know less about and might not be able to handle
If you don't know how to handle exceptions in a particular situation, trust me: don't catch them. Better to let your app crash (I mean, you know, log it; just don't swallow it) than to catch something you don't know how to recover from and then let your app continue merrily on its way in a corrupted state. Behavior will be unpredictable at best from that point on.
If you love us? You can donate to us via Paypal or buy me a coffee so we can maintain and grow! Thank you!
Donate Us With