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
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
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。
我不能说明Objective-C中的最佳实践,但在c++中,构造函数抛出异常是可以的。特别是没有其他方法可以确保在不调用isOK()方法的情况下报告构造过程中遇到的异常情况。
函数try块特性是专门为支持构造函数成员初始化失败而设计的(尽管它也可以用于常规函数)。这是修改或丰富将要抛出的异常信息的唯一方法。但由于其最初的设计目的(在构造函数中使用),它不允许空catch()子句包含异常。
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/
当构造函数无法完成所述对象的构造时,它应该抛出异常。
例如,如果构造函数应该分配1024 KB的ram,但它没有这样做,它应该抛出一个异常,这样构造函数的调用者就知道对象还没有准备好使用,并且在某个地方存在需要修复的错误。
半初始化和半死亡的对象只会引起问题和问题,因为调用者确实没有办法知道。我宁愿让我的构造函数在出错时抛出一个错误,而不是不得不依赖编程来运行返回true或false的isOK()函数的调用。
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。