resume next in VB.NET ?

[fniles]

In VB 6 I can do the following:

Sub MySub
on error goto Err1
: --all my codes are here
: --say this is where the error occurs
: --this is where resume next will bring me after Err1
exit sub

Err1:
msgbox "error = " & error
resume next
end sub

With the above codes, when I get an error, it did not exit out of my
subroutine, instead I will go to the next statement after I get the error.
Can I do the same thing in VB.NET 2005 ? Thank you.

Currently in VB.NET, this is what I do:

Sub MySub
try
: --all my codes are here
Catch ex As Exception
Try
swError = New StreamWriter(Ap plication.Start upPath &
"\Log.txt", True)
swError.WriteLi ne(Now & " error = " & ex.Message)
swError.Close()
swError = Nothing
Catch ex2 As Exception
End Try
End Try
End Sub

With the above code, if I get an error, it will exit the sub and will not
execute the rest of the code in my subroutine.

[Cor Ligthert[MVP]]

Fniles,

I think that you have learned yourself a very bad way of creating code.

It would in my idea be nicer when you did it like this.

\\\
Sub
All your code that cannot throw an exception here
Try
swError = new StreamWriter(.. ...
Try
swError.Write line
Catch
'here you handle the writting errors
End Try
Catch
'here you handle the opening errors
Finally
'here you do the code as closing
'where setting something to nothing is as well a bad habit.
End Try
End Sub
///

If you have in one of these routines errors, then there is nothing to
resume.

Cor

[Phill W.]

fniles wrote:

>try
statment #1
catch 'note: no "ex as exception" necessary
end try

Does it mean that I want to do the above codes for each line of the codes ?

No. Not in that form, anyway.

This is the equivalent of "On Error Resume Next" with /no/ error
handling of any kind, something like this ...

On Error Resume Next
Statement1
Statement2
Statement3
' and so on

.... only worse. The Exception - whatever it might have been - only
exists for the duration of the Catch block (unless you Throw it again)
so, by the time you hit "End Try", it's /evaporated/ as if it never
happened:

Try
Statement1
Catch
End Try
' Even if Statement1 went wrong, we /don't/ know about it!!

Try
Statement2
Catch
End Try
' Even if Statement2 went wrong, we /don't/ know about it!!

So the above could work, so long as you put /something/ in the Catch
blocks.
Having said all that, might it not be better to push the Try..Catch
constructs into the routines that you're /calling/ instead?

Sub X()
Statement1()
Statement2()
End Sub

Sub Statement1()
Try
' whatever
Catch ex as Exception
End Try
End Sub

(and the same for Statement2())

Any Exception gets caught in the [called] routine and your main routine
never gets to see it (because it's been "handled" already).

HTH,
Phill W.