为了避免所有我可以在谷歌上搜索到的标准答案，我将提供一个你们都可以随意攻击的例子。
c#和Java(以及其他很多语言)有很多类型，有些“溢出”行为我一点也不喜欢(例如type。MaxValue +类型。SmallestValue ==类型。MinValue，例如int。MaxValue + 1 = int.MinValue)。
但是，鉴于我的邪恶本性，我将通过将此行为扩展为重写DateTime类型来对这种伤害进行侮辱。(我知道DateTime在. net中是密封的，但为了这个例子，我使用了一种与c#完全相似的伪语言，除了DateTime没有密封之外)。
被覆盖的Add方法:
/// <summary>
/// Increments this date with a timespan, but loops when
/// the maximum value for datetime is exceeded.
/// </summary>
/// <param name="ts">The timespan to (try to) add</param>
/// <returns>The Date, incremented with the given timespan.
/// If DateTime.MaxValue is exceeded, the sum wil 'overflow' and
/// continue from DateTime.MinValue.
/// </returns>
public DateTime override Add(TimeSpan ts)
{
try
{
return base.Add(ts);
}
catch (ArgumentOutOfRangeException nb)
{
// calculate how much the MaxValue is exceeded
// regular program flow
TimeSpan saldo = ts - (base.MaxValue - this);
return DateTime.MinValue.Add(saldo)
}
catch(Exception anyOther)
{
// 'real' exception handling.
}
}
当然，如果可以很容易地解决这个问题，但事实仍然是，我不明白为什么不能使用异常(从逻辑上讲，我可以看到，当性能是一个问题时，在某些情况下应该避免异常)。
我认为在许多情况下，它们比if结构更清晰，并且不会破坏方法所做的任何契约。
恕我直言，“永远不要在常规程序流程中使用它们”的反应似乎并不是每个人都有，因为这种反应的力量可以证明。
还是我说错了?
我读过其他的帖子，处理各种特殊情况，但我的观点是，如果你们都是:
清晰的
尊重你的方法
拍我。
有一些通用的机制，语言可以允许一个方法退出而不返回值，并unwind到下一个“catch”块:
Have the method examine the stack frame to determine the call site, and use the metadata for the call site to find either information about a try block within the calling method, or the location where the calling method stored the address of its caller; in the latter situation, examine metadata for the caller's caller to determine in the same fashion as the immediate caller, repeating until one finds a try block or the stack is empty. This approach adds very little overhead to the no-exception case (it does preclude some optimizations) but is expensive when an exception occurs.
Have the method return a "hidden" flag which distinguishes a normal return from an exception, and have the caller check that flag and branch to an "exception" routine if it's set. This routine adds 1-2 instructions to the no-exception case, but relatively little overhead when an exception occurs.
Have the caller place exception-handling information or code at a fixed address relative to the stacked return address. For example, with the ARM, instead of using the instruction "BL subroutine", one could use the sequence:
adr lr,next_instr
b subroutine
b handle_exception
next_instr:
要正常退出，子例程只需执行bx lr或pop {pc};在异常退出的情况下，子例程将在执行返回之前从LR中减去4，或者使用sub LR，#4,pc(取决于ARM的变化，执行模式等)。如果调用者没有被设计为适应它，这种方法将会非常严重地故障。
A language or framework which uses checked exceptions might benefit from having those handled with a mechanism like #2 or #3 above, while unchecked exceptions are handled using #1. Although the implementation of checked exceptions in Java is rather nuisancesome, they would not be a bad concept if there were a means by which a call site could say, essentially, "This method is declared as throwing XX, but I don't expect it ever to do so; if it does, rethrow as an "unchecked" exception. In a framework where checked exceptions were handled in such fashion, they could be an effective means of flow control for things like parsing methods which in some contexts may have a high likelihood of failure, but where failure should return fundamentally different information than success. I'm unaware of any frameworks that use such a pattern, however. Instead, the more common pattern is to use the first approach above (minimal cost for the no-exception case, but high cost when exceptions are thrown) for all exceptions.
