构造函数何时抛出异常是正确的?(或者在Objective C的情况下:什么情况下init ` er才应该返回nil?)

在我看来,如果对象不完整,构造函数应该失败——因此拒绝创建对象。也就是说,构造函数应该与它的调用者有一个合同,以提供一个函数和工作对象,在哪些方法可以被有意义地调用?这合理吗?


当前回答

如果你正在编写ui控件(ASPX, WinForms, WPF,…),你应该避免在构造函数中抛出异常,因为设计器(Visual Studio)在创建控件时无法处理它们。了解你的控件生命周期(控件事件),尽可能使用惰性初始化。

其他回答

构造函数的任务是使对象进入可用状态。关于这个问题,基本上有两种观点。

一组人赞成两阶段建设。构造函数只是将对象带入一个休眠状态,在这种状态下它拒绝做任何工作。还有一个额外的函数来进行实际的初始化。

我一直不明白这种方法背后的原因。我坚决支持单阶段构造,即对象在构造后完全初始化并可用。

如果单阶段构造函数未能完全初始化对象,则应该抛出。如果对象不能初始化,则必须不允许它存在,因此构造函数必须抛出。

由于部分创建的类可能导致的所有麻烦,我认为永远不会。

如果需要在构造过程中验证某些内容,请将构造函数设为私有并定义一个公共静态工厂方法。如果某些东西无效,该方法可以抛出。但是如果一切都检查出来了,它就调用构造函数,保证不会抛出。

Using factories or factory methods for all object creation, you can avoid invalid objects without throwing exceptions from constructors. The creation method should return the requested object if it's able to create one, or null if it's not. You lose a little bit of flexibility in handling construction errors in the user of a class, because returning null doesn't tell you what went wrong in the object creation. But it also avoids adding the complexity of multiple exception handlers every time you request an object, and the risk of catching exceptions you shouldn't handle.

是的,如果构造函数未能构建其内部部分之一,则它可以(通过选择)有责任抛出(并以某种语言声明)一个显式异常,这在构造函数文档中有适当的说明。

This is not the only option: It could finish the constructor and build an object, but with a method 'isCoherent()' returning false, in order to be able to signal an incoherent state (that may be preferable in certain case, in order to avoid a brutal interruption of the execution workflow due to an exception) Warning: as said by EricSchaefer in his comment, that can bring some complexity to the unit testing (a throw can increase the cyclomatic complexity of the function due to the condition that triggers it)

如果它因为调用者而失败(比如调用者提供了一个空参数,而被调用的构造函数需要一个非空参数),构造函数无论如何都会抛出一个未检查的运行时异常。

我不确定是否有答案可以完全与语言无关。有些语言处理异常和内存管理的方式不同。

I've worked before under coding standards requiring exceptions never be used and only error codes on initializers, because developers had been burned by the language poorly handling exceptions. Languages without garbage collection will handle heap and stack very differently, which may matter for non RAII objects. It is important though that a team decide to be consistent so they know by default if they need to call initializers after constructors. All methods (including constructors) should also be well documented as to what exceptions they can throw, so callers know how to handle them.

我通常支持单阶段构造,因为很容易忘记初始化对象,但也有很多例外。

Your language support for exceptions isn't very good. You have a pressing design reason to still use new and delete Your initialization is processor intensive and should run async to the thread that created the object. You are creating a DLL that may be throwing exceptions outside it's interface to an application using a different language. In this case it may not be so much an issue of not throwing exceptions, but making sure they are caught before the public interface. (You can catch C++ exceptions in C#, but there are hoops to jump through.) Static constructors (C#)