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

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#)

其他回答

对我来说,这是一个有点哲学的设计决策。

拥有实例是非常好的,只要它们存在就有效,从ctor时间开始。对于许多重要的情况,如果无法进行内存/资源分配,则可能需要从ctor抛出异常。

其他一些方法是init()方法,它本身存在一些问题。其中之一是确保init()实际被调用。

一个变体使用惰性方法在第一次调用访问器/突变器时自动调用init(),但这要求任何潜在的调用者都必须担心对象是否有效。(而不是“它存在,因此它是有效的哲学”)。

我也看到过处理这个问题的各种设计模式。例如,可以通过ctor创建初始对象,但必须调用init()来获得包含的、初始化的具有访问器/突变器的对象。

每种方法都有其利弊;我已经成功地使用了所有这些方法。如果不是在创建对象的那一刻就创建现成的对象,那么我建议使用大量的断言或异常,以确保用户在init()之前不会进行交互。

齿顶高

我是从c++程序员的角度写的。我还假设您正确地使用了RAII习惯用法来处理抛出异常时释放的资源。

Throwing an exception during construction is a great way to make your code way more complex. Things that would seem simple suddenly become hard. For example, let's say you have a stack. How do you pop the stack and return the top value? Well, if the objects in the stack can throw in their constructors (constructing the temporary to return to the caller), you can't guarantee that you won't lose data (decrement stack pointer, construct return value using copy constructor of value in stack, which throws, and now have a stack that just lost an item)! This is why std::stack::pop does not return a value, and you have to call std::stack::top.

这个问题在这里有很好的描述,检查第10项,编写异常安全的代码。

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。

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/

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。