Depending on the language it either does nothing and just adds code bloat or (and this would be much worse) it will catch any exception that can be implicitly cast to type Exception and throw it as type Exception. So the next higher scope would not be able to catch e.g. a RuntimeException or w.e. to handle appropriately. It could only catch a regular Exception even if the original error was a more detailed type.
So you are saying that the following code will keep throwing e but if I used throw e; it would basically be the same except for the stack trace that would be missing the important root cause ?!
try {
} catch (WhateverException e) {
// stuff, or nothing, or whateverthrow;
}
Lol what’s wrong with this if the parent function catches it
Depending on the language it either does nothing and just adds code bloat or (and this would be much worse) it will catch any exception that can be implicitly cast to type Exception and throw it as type Exception. So the next higher scope would not be able to catch e.g. a RuntimeException or w.e. to handle appropriately. It could only catch a regular Exception even if the original error was a more detailed type.
If this is C# (and it looks like it is), this leads to you losing the original stack trace up until this point.
The correct way to do this in C# is to just
throw;after you’re done with whatever you wanted to do in thecatch.wait what ?
So you are saying that the following code will keep throwing
ebut if I usedthrow e;it would basically be the same except for the stack trace that would be missing the important root cause ?!try { } catch (WhateverException e) { // stuff, or nothing, or whatever throw; }Exactly. Aside from deleting your already built stack trace, as a bonus you’ll get another stack trace building call, enjoy wasted CPU cycles.
You don’t catch it if that’s the case
The
catchis useless if it’s just throwing the exception anywayThe catch is mandatory…
You could just not catch it and it’ll get thrown up the stack anyway.