Menu
When an exception is cached in a catch block, you can re-throw it using the throw keyword (which is used to throw the exception objects). Or, wrap it within a new exception and throw it.
The try statement allows you to define a block of code to be tested for errors while it is being executed. The catch statement allows you to define a block of code to be executed, if an error occurs in the try block.
You can also omit the arguments on the catch block entirely. In this case, the catch block will catch all exceptions, regardless of their type. Because you don't declare an exception variable, however, you won't have access to information about the exception.
The C# try and catch keywords are used to define a try catch block. A try catch block is placed around code that could throw an exception. If an exception is thrown, this try catch block will handle the exception to ensure that the application does not cause an unhandled exception, user error, or crash the application.
Disclaimer: It is well known that catch (ex) { throw ex; } is bad practice. This question is not about that.
While digging through Microsoft reference sources, I noticed the following pattern in a lot of methods:
try { ... } catch { throw; } No logging, no debugging code—just a plain simple catch { throw; }.
Since, obviously, the guys at Microsoft should be fairly proficient in the use of C#, what could be the point of doing that instead of just omitting the catch block (and the try statement) altogether? Is there a technical reason for coding like this, or is it purely a stylistic choice?
Note: I don't know if it is relevant, but all such instances I could find also contain a try-finally block nested inside the try clause of the try-catch block.
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