Try Catch Opinion

[John F]

Hello All,

I know you shouldn't issue a 'return' from a finally block, but how about a
catch block?

If while in a method call you fall into a catch and don't want to continue
processing the rest of the code in the method is it ok to 'return' from the
catch?

Thanks,
John

[Thomas T. Veldhouse]

John F <[e-mail]:

Hello All,

I know you shouldn't issue a 'return' from a finally block, but how about a
catch block?

If while in a method call you fall into a catch and don't want to continue
processing the rest of the code in the method is it ok to 'return' from the
catch?

I don't see why not, although I think it is not very clean. Even if you
"return" from a catch block, the code in the finally block will be executed,
and thus, the flow is not obviously clean. In fact, it makes much more sense
to return from a finally block then a catch block for this reason alone [I
would do neither].

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1

[Stoitcho Goutsev \(100\)]

Yes, you can return from catch block it is completely correct.
--
HTH
Stoitcho Goutsev (100)

"John F" <[e-mail] in message
news:CC**********************************@microsof t.com...

Hello All,

I know you shouldn't issue a 'return' from a finally block, but how about
a
catch block?

If while in a method call you fall into a catch and don't want to continue
processing the rest of the code in the method is it ok to 'return' from
the
catch?

Thanks,
John

[ZenRhapsody]

Sure, it's ok.

Realize that if you have

try
{ yada yada yada.....}
catch
{ return;}
finally
{... some cleanup code }

The code in the finally block is executed immediately AFTER the return
statement.

I do agree with another poster that this may decrease readability of your
code. If I need some construct like this, I typically comment at the top
and bottom of the method (and probably in the try/catch area also) in a way
that i can't overlook.

"John F" <[e-mail] in message
news:CC**********************************@microsof t.com...

Hello All,

I know you shouldn't issue a 'return' from a finally block, but how about
a
catch block?

If while in a method call you fall into a catch and don't want to continue
processing the rest of the code in the method is it ok to 'return' from
the
catch?

Thanks,
John

[John F]

Thanks to all for the input. The particular scenarios I want to implement
won't incorporate a finally block.

Thanks...

"John F" wrote:

Hello All,

I know you shouldn't issue a 'return' from a finally block, but how about a
catch block?

If while in a method call you fall into a catch and don't want to continue
processing the rest of the code in the method is it ok to 'return' from the
catch?

Thanks,
John

[chanmm]

Best Practices for Handling Exceptions:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/de...Exceptions.asp

chanmm

"John F" <[e-mail] in message
news:CC**********************************@microsof t.com...

Hello All,

I know you shouldn't issue a 'return' from a finally block, but how about
a
catch block?

If while in a method call you fall into a catch and don't want to continue
processing the rest of the code in the method is it ok to 'return' from
the
catch?

Thanks,
John

[Alvin Bruney [MVP]]

Just as an FYI, you should have more finally blocks than catch blocks.

--
________________________
Warm regards,
Alvin Bruney [MVP ASP.NET]

[Shameless Author plug]
Professional VSTO.NET - Wrox/Wiley
The O.W.C. Black Book with .NET
www.lulu.com/owc, Amazon
Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/blogs/alvin
-------------------------------------------------------
"John F" <[e-mail] in message
news:56**********************************@microsof t.com...

Thanks to all for the input. The particular scenarios I want to implement
won't incorporate a finally block.

Thanks...

"John F" wrote:

>Hello All,

I know you shouldn't issue a 'return' from a finally block, but how about
a
catch block?

If while in a method call you fall into a catch and don't want to
continue
processing the rest of the code in the method is it ok to 'return' from
the
catch?

Thanks,
John