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?
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
Eric Lippert说有四种例外。
Fatal exceptions are not your fault, you cannot prevent them, and you cannot sensibly clean up from them. Boneheaded exceptions are your own darn fault, you could have prevented them and therefore they are bugs in your code. Vexing exceptions are the result of unfortunate design decisions. Vexing exceptions are thrown in a completely non-exceptional circumstance, and therefore must be caught and handled all the time. And finally, exogenous exceptions appear to be somewhat like vexing exceptions except that they are not the result of unfortunate design choices. Rather, they are the result of untidy external realities impinging upon your beautiful, crisp program logic.
构造函数本身不应该抛出致命异常,但它执行的代码可能会导致致命异常。像“内存不足”这样的事情不是您可以控制的,但是如果它发生在构造函数中,嘿,它就发生了。
愚蠢的异常永远不应该出现在任何代码中,所以它们应该被清除。
构造函数不应该抛出恼人的异常(例如Int32.Parse()),因为它们没有非异常情况。
最后,应该避免外生异常,但如果在构造函数中执行的某些操作依赖于外部环境(如网络或文件系统),则抛出异常是合适的。
参考链接:https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/ericlippert/2008/09/10/vexing-exceptions/
其他回答
参见c++常见问题解答第17.2和17.4节。
一般来说,我发现如果构造函数被编写,那么它们就不会失败,那么移植和维护结果的代码就会更容易,而可能失败的代码则放在一个单独的方法中,该方法返回错误代码并使对象处于惰性状态。
请注意,如果您在初始化器中抛出异常,如果任何代码使用[[[MyObj alloc] init] autorelease]模式,那么您将最终泄漏,因为异常将跳过自动释放。
看这个问题:
在init中引发异常时如何防止泄漏?
There is generally nothing to be gained by divorcing object initialization from construction. RAII is correct, a successful call to the constructor should either result in a fully initialized live object or it should fail, and ALL failures at any point in any code path should always throw an exception. You gain nothing by use of a separate init() method except additional complexity at some level. The ctor contract should be either it returns a functional valid object or it cleans up after itself and throws.
考虑一下,如果实现了单独的init方法,仍然必须调用它。它仍然有可能抛出异常,它们仍然必须被处理,而且它们实际上总是必须在构造函数之后立即被调用,除了现在你有4种可能的对象状态而不是2种(IE,已构造,初始化,未初始化,失败vs只是有效和不存在)。
In any case I've run across in 25 years of OO development cases where it seems like a separate init method would 'solve some problem' are design flaws. If you don't need an object NOW then you shouldn't be constructing it now, and if you do need it now then you need it initialized. KISS should always be the principle followed, along with the simple concept that the behavior, state, and API of any interface should reflect WHAT the object does, not HOW it does it, client code should not even be aware that the object has any kind of internal state that requires initialization, thus the init after pattern violates this principle.
这总是很危险的,特别是当你在构造函数中分配资源时;根据你的语言,析构函数不会被调用,所以你需要手动清理。这取决于在您的语言中对象的生命周期何时开始。
我真正这么做的唯一一次是在某个地方出现了安全问题,这意味着对象不应该,而不是不能,被创建。
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。