简单的try / catch不作任何用途的除外 [英] Simple try/catch not making any use of the exception

问题描述

我已经寻找的答案，我的问题，但没能找到一个。道歉，如果答案是有，我复制！

I have searched for an answer to my question but not been able to find one. Apologies if the answer is there and I am duplicating!

我一直看到的try / catch代码，如.....

I keep seeing try/catch code such as.....

try
{
    //Do whatever
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
    MessageBox.Show("Oops, something went wrong!");
}

这将导致一个警告前从未使用过。

Which will result in a warning ex is never used.

所以我的问题是......虽然前从未使用过有在申报任何利益？有人告诉我，也许它增加了详细的堆栈跟踪？有时候，我看到赶上（例外），该停止的警告，但这确实带来哪些好处，如果有的话？如果我是写这个，而不是使用异常以任何方式我不会宣布前...

So my question is... Although ex is never used is there any benefit in the declaration? I was told that maybe it adds detail to the stack trace? Sometimes I see catch(Exception) which stops the warning but what benefits does this bring, if any? If I was to write this and not use the exception in any way I wouldn't declare ex...

try
{
    //Do whatever
}
catch
{
    MessageBox.Show("Oops, something went wrong!");
}

不是一个很大的问题，但是这将是很好的了解肯定！

Not a big problem but it would be good to know for sure!

感谢

弗雷德

推荐答案

您可以使用下面的模式，仍然宣布具体的异常类型，没有一个变量，以确保结构化异常处理（SEH）仍然发生了：

You can use the following pattern, still declaring the specific exception type, without a variable, to ensure Structured Exception Handling (SEH) is still happening:

try
{
    //Do whatever
}
catch (IOException)
{
    MessageBox.Show("Oops, something went wrong in the IO!");
}
catch (Exception)
{
    MessageBox.Show("Oops, something went wrong!");
}

这是不是一个做法我通常会用，因为我可能会记录异常的详细信息，如果不重新抛出它。

This is not a practice I would normally use, as I would probably log the exception details if not rethrowing it.

这篇关于简单的try / catch不作任何用途的除外的文章就介绍到这了，希望我们推荐的答案对大家有所帮助，也希望大家多多支持IT屋！