Jul 21, 2016 · Does using the 'catch, when' feature make exception handling faster because the handler is skipped as such and the stack unwinding can happen much earlier as when …

NoSuchFieldException e) { someCode(); } Remember, though, that if all the exceptions belong to the same class hierarchy, you can simply catch that base exception type. Also note that you …

I want to know if I can safely write catch () only to catch all System.Exception types. Or do I've to stick to catch (Exception) to accomplish this. I know for other exception types (e.g.

If you re-throw an exception within the catch block, and that exception is caught inside of another catch block, everything executes according to the documentation.

I think that this only works if you raise and then catch the exception, but not if you try getting the traceback before raising an exception object that you create, which you might want to do in …

Sep 27, 2008 · One related and confusing thing to know is that in a try- [catch]-finally structure, a finally block may throw an exception and if so, any exception thrown by the try or catch block …

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 …

I am trying to write an MS sql script that has a transaction and a try/catch block. If it catches an exception, the transaction is rolled back. If not, the transaction is committed. I have seen ...

13 Nope, catch (or finally) is try 's friend and always there as part of try/catch. However, it is perfectly valid to have them empty, like in your example. In the comments in your example …

May 18, 2010 · Within the catch block you can respond to the thrown exception. This block is executed only if there is an unhandled exception and the type matches the one or is subclass …