quit method execution on event

[=?Utf-8?B?bXIgcGVhbnV0?=]

Usually when a method is executing and an event occurs the event handler
executes then the thread is returned to the original method.

I have a case where I want my event handler to cancel execution of any
existing methods in process. Is there a way?

[=?Utf-8?B?bXIgcGVhbnV0?=]

Ok, the parent method is any one of several procedures each of which access a
function (in another class) with a try-catch block. The catch block triggers
an event which is handled in the main class with an error procedure. When the
error procedure completes the parent method resumes.

I could set a Boolean "IsErrror" variable to true and include a conditional
in each of the many possible parent methods and abort the method if
ISError==true, but that is inelegant. I was hoping there was some way to
abort the sender method from the error event handler.

[Peter Duniho]

mr peanut wrote:

Ok, the parent method is any one of several procedures each of which access a
function (in another class) with a try-catch block. The catch block triggers
an event which is handled in the main class with an error procedure. When the
error procedure completes the parent method resumes. [...]

So you've got an event that is raised as part of your error handling?

Why not just rethrow the exception after you've done your own local
error handling?

Pete

[=?Utf-8?B?bXIgcGVhbnV0?=]

"Peter Duniho" wrote:

mr peanut wrote:

Ok, the parent method is any one of several procedures each of which access a
function (in another class) with a try-catch block. The catch block triggers
an event which is handled in the main class with an error procedure. When the
error procedure completes the parent method resumes. [...]

So you've got an event that is raised as part of your error handling?

Why not just rethrow the exception after you've done your own local
error handling?

Pete

Pete;

Sorry I'm so dunderheaded.

If I use this approach will I then need to have a try catch block in each of
the parent procedures?

[Peter Duniho]

mr peanut wrote:

[...]
If I use this approach will I then need to have a try catch block in each of
the parent procedures?

That depends on what your intent for the code's behavior is. You
haven't been very specific about what it is exactly you're trying to do,
so it's very difficult to offer any specific advice.

Your previous post seems to imply that you do not want the "parent"
method to continue executing, so based on that I'd say no, you would not
want to catch the exception in the "parent" method.

Now, whether you want an exception handler in the code that calls the
"parent" method, I can't say. It really depends on what exactly it is
you are trying to accomplish. But generally speaking, if you want a
section of code to stop executing, execution still has to resume
_somewhere_, or else the thread that's currently executing has to itself
exit.

Without knowing exactly how you want your code flow to be adjusted
according to the error, I can't really say what the best way to do that is.

Pete