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。

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#)

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。

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/

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。

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。