suppress 'variable is declared but never used' for exception variables?

[Les Caudle]

If I have code such as:

catch (WebException WebExcp) {
return false;
}

I will get a warning CS0168: The variable 'WebExcp' is declared but never used

when compiling.

Is there a way to suppress this for individual cases - or failing that,
globally?
--
Thanks in advance, Les Caudle

[Nicholas Paldino [.NET/C# MVP]]

Les,

You can always change the catch to:

catch (WebException)
{
return false;
}

This way, the variable is not declared, and the error doesn't come up.

Hope this helps.
--
- Nicholas Paldino [.NET/C# MVP]
- mv*@spam.guard.caspershouse.com

"Les Caudle" <ve**@tiredofspam.com> wrote in message
news:v8********************************@4ax.com...

If I have code such as:

catch (WebException WebExcp) {
return false;
}

I will get a warning CS0168: The variable 'WebExcp' is declared but never used
when compiling.

Is there a way to suppress this for individual cases - or failing that,
globally?
--
Thanks in advance, Les Caudle

[mikeb]

Les Caudle wrote:

If I have code such as:

catch (WebException WebExcp) {
return false;
}

I will get a warning CS0168: The variable 'WebExcp' is declared but never used

when compiling.

Is there a way to suppress this for individual cases - or failing that,
globally?

public class Unreferenced {
[System.Diagnostics.Conditional( "DEBUG")]
static public void Parameter( params object [] o)
{
return;
}
}

// ...

try {
//
}
catch (Exception WebExcp) {
Unreferenced.Parameter( WebExcp);
return;
}
--
mikeb

[Jon Skeet [C# MVP]]

mikeb <ma************@nospam.mailnull.com> wrote:

Is there a way to suppress this for individual cases - or failing that,
globally?

public class Unreferenced {
[System.Diagnostics.Conditional( "DEBUG")]
static public void Parameter( params object [] o)
{
return;
}
}

// ...

try {
//
}
catch (Exception WebExcp) {
Unreferenced.Parameter( WebExcp);
return;
}

While this will work, it would be better just to not declare WebExcp at
all:

catch (Exception)
{
....
}

--
Jon Skeet - <sk***@pobox.com>
http://www.pobox.com/~skeet
If replying to the group, please do not mail me too

[mikeb]

Jon Skeet [C# MVP] wrote:

While this will work, it would be better just to not declare WebExcp at
all:

catch (Exception)
{
...
}

Normally, yes. However, sometimes I have the exception variable there
so I can examine it when debugging.

--
mikeb

[mikeb]

mikeb wrote:

Jon Skeet [C# MVP] wrote:

While this will work, it would be better just to not declare WebExcp
at all:

catch (Exception)
{
...
}

Normally, yes. However, sometimes I have the exception variable there
so I can examine it when debugging.

It also has use for suppressing the warning for unreferenced locals or
method parameters.

I know that in a perfect world the need for this wouldn't exist, but
there are times (particularly for debugging and maintenance of code
whose interfaces can't be modified) that this technique can be useful.

--
mikeb

[Crea-Ue. Kirdar]

> public class Unreferenced {

[System.Diagnostics.Conditional( "DEBUG")]
static public void Parameter( params object [] o)
{
return;
}
}

// ...

try {
//
}
catch (Exception WebExcp) {
Unreferenced.Parameter( WebExcp);
return;
}

sorry, WHAT?
you catch the exception into an object, pass it thru a class where you dont
handle it ??? - did i miss the superpoint on this, or is this just useless?

[Crea-Ue. Kirdar]

Am Sat, 19 Jun 2004 05:25:19 +0200 schrieb Crea-Ue. Kirdar:

sorry, WHAT?
you catch the exception into an object, pass it thru a class where you dont
handle it ??? - did i miss the superpoint on this, or is this just useless?

forget it, i saw the answer to jons post too late, sorry. :)