Menu
I'm probably overlooking something simple, but I do not expect the below code to fail. It is behaving as if I wrote die instead of fail in the catch block.
The Failure does not get properly handled and the code dies.
sub foo()
{
try {
say 1 / 0;
CATCH { default { fail "FAIL" } }
}
return True;
}
with foo() {
say "done";
}
else
{
say "handled {.exception.message}"
}
Output:
FAIL
in block at d:\tmp\x.pl line 5
in any at d:\tmp\x.pl line 5
in sub foo at d:\tmp\x.pl line 4
in block <unit> at d:\tmp\x.pl line 11
224
You can put a try catch inside the catch block, or you can simply throw the exception again. Its better to have finally block with your try catch so that even if an exception occurs in the catch block, finally block code gets executed.
Yes we can catch Throwable but as best practice, it is not advised to catch Throwable . Catching Throwable includes Errors too, we should not catch errors, it helps to identify JVM issues.
In general, try-catch blocks are great because they will break (move to the catch statement) whenever the exception occurs. If-else blocks rely on you predicting when the error will happen. Edit: Also, catch blocks won't stop your code from halting when an error is hit.
Without a try catch, you run the risk of encountering unhandled exceptions. Try catch statements aren't free in that they come with performance overhead. Like any language feature, try catches can be overused.
To bring home to later readers the full force of what Yoda said in their comment, the simplest solution is to unlearn the notion that you have to try in order to CATCH. You don't:
sub foo()
{
say 1 / 0;
CATCH { default { fail "FAIL" } }
return True;
}
with foo() {
say "done";
}
else
{
say "handled {.exception.message}"
}
correctly displays:
handled FAIL
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
