我一直相信,如果一个方法可以抛出异常,那么不使用有意义的try块来保护这个调用就是鲁莽的。
我刚刚发布了‘你应该总是包装调用,可以抛出try, catch块。,结果被告知这是一个“非常糟糕的建议”——我想知道为什么。
我一直相信,如果一个方法可以抛出异常,那么不使用有意义的try块来保护这个调用就是鲁莽的。
我刚刚发布了‘你应该总是包装调用,可以抛出try, catch块。,结果被告知这是一个“非常糟糕的建议”——我想知道为什么。
当前回答
As Mitch and others stated, you shouldn't catch an exception that you do not plan on handling in some way. You should consider how the application is going to systematically handle exceptions when you are designing it. This usually leads to having layers of error handling based on the abstractions - for example, you handle all SQL-related errors in your data access code so that the part of the application that is interacting with domain objects is not exposed to the fact that there is a DB under the hood somewhere.
除了“在任何地方捕获所有东西”的味道之外,还有一些相关的代码味道是您一定要避免的。
"catch, log, rethrow": if you want scoped based logging, then write a class that emits a log statement in its destructor when the stack is unrolling due to an exception (ala std::uncaught_exception()). All that you need to do is declare a logging instance in the scope that you are interested in and, voila, you have logging and no unnecessary try/catch logic. "catch, throw translated": this usually points to an abstraction problem. Unless you are implementing a federated solution where you are translating several specific exceptions into one more generic one, you probably have an unnecessary layer of abstraction... and don't say that "I might need it tomorrow". "catch, cleanup, rethrow": this is one of my pet-peeves. If you see a lot of this, then you should apply Resource Acquisition is Initialization techniques and place the cleanup portion in the destructor of a janitor object instance.
我认为充斥着try/catch块的代码是代码评审和重构的好目标。它表明要么异常处理没有被很好地理解,要么代码已经变成了无用的,急需重构。
其他回答
As Mitch and others stated, you shouldn't catch an exception that you do not plan on handling in some way. You should consider how the application is going to systematically handle exceptions when you are designing it. This usually leads to having layers of error handling based on the abstractions - for example, you handle all SQL-related errors in your data access code so that the part of the application that is interacting with domain objects is not exposed to the fact that there is a DB under the hood somewhere.
除了“在任何地方捕获所有东西”的味道之外,还有一些相关的代码味道是您一定要避免的。
"catch, log, rethrow": if you want scoped based logging, then write a class that emits a log statement in its destructor when the stack is unrolling due to an exception (ala std::uncaught_exception()). All that you need to do is declare a logging instance in the scope that you are interested in and, voila, you have logging and no unnecessary try/catch logic. "catch, throw translated": this usually points to an abstraction problem. Unless you are implementing a federated solution where you are translating several specific exceptions into one more generic one, you probably have an unnecessary layer of abstraction... and don't say that "I might need it tomorrow". "catch, cleanup, rethrow": this is one of my pet-peeves. If you see a lot of this, then you should apply Resource Acquisition is Initialization techniques and place the cleanup portion in the destructor of a janitor object instance.
我认为充斥着try/catch块的代码是代码评审和重构的好目标。它表明要么异常处理没有被很好地理解,要么代码已经变成了无用的,急需重构。
You don't need to cover every block with try-catches because a try-catch can still catch unhandled exceptions thrown in functions further down the call stack. So rather than have every function have a try-catch, you can have one at the top level logic of your application. For example, there might be a SaveDocument() top-level routine, which calls many methods which call other methods etc. These sub-methods don't need their own try-catches, because if they throw, it's still caught by SaveDocument()'s catch.
这样做很好,有三个原因:它很方便,因为只有一个地方可以报告错误:SaveDocument()捕获块。没有必要在所有子方法中重复这一点,而且这正是您想要的:在一个单一的位置为用户提供关于出错的有用诊断。
第二,每当抛出异常时,保存将被取消。对于每个尝试捕获子方法,如果抛出异常,则进入该方法的捕获块,执行离开函数,并通过SaveDocument()继续进行。如果事情已经出了问题,你可能会想就此打住。
第三,所有子方法都可以假设每次调用都成功。如果调用失败,执行将跳转到catch块,后续代码永远不会执行。这可以使您的代码更加清晰。例如,下面是错误代码:
int ret = SaveFirstSection();
if (ret == FAILED)
{
/* some diagnostic */
return;
}
ret = SaveSecondSection();
if (ret == FAILED)
{
/* some diagnostic */
return;
}
ret = SaveThirdSection();
if (ret == FAILED)
{
/* some diagnostic */
return;
}
下面是如何编写例外情况:
// these throw if failed, caught in SaveDocument's catch
SaveFirstSection();
SaveSecondSection();
SaveThirdSection();
现在发生了什么更加清楚了。
注意,以其他方式编写异常安全代码可能更加棘手:如果抛出异常,您不希望泄漏任何内存。确保你了解RAII、STL容器、智能指针和其他在析构函数中释放资源的对象,因为对象总是在异常之前被析构。
尽管Mike Wheat的回答很好地总结了要点,但我还是觉得有必要再补充一个答案。我是这样想的。当你有方法做很多事情时,你是在增加复杂性,而不是增加它。
换句话说,封装在try catch中的方法有两种可能的结果。有非异常结果和异常结果。当你处理很多方法的时候这个指数级的爆炸超出了你的理解。
因为如果每个方法都以两种不同的方式分支,那么每次调用另一个方法时,你都是在对之前的潜在结果数进行平方。当你调用了5个方法时,你至少有256个可能的结果。与此相比,在每个方法中都不执行try/catch,您只有一条路径可以遵循。
我基本上就是这么看的。您可能会认为任何类型的分支都做同样的事情,但try/catch是一个特殊情况,因为应用程序的状态基本上是未定义的。
简而言之,try/catch使代码更难理解。
您不需要在try-catch中掩盖代码的每一部分。try-catch块的主要用途是错误处理和获取程序中的错误/异常。try-catch -的用法
您可以在想要处理异常的地方使用此块,或者简单地说编写的代码块可能抛出异常。 如果你想在对象使用后立即释放它们,你可以使用try-catch块。
Herb Sutter在这里写过这个问题。绝对值得一读。 摘要:
"Writing exception-safe code is fundamentally about writing 'try' and 'catch' in the correct places." Discuss. Put bluntly, that statement reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of exception safety. Exceptions are just another form of error reporting, and we certainly know that writing error-safe code is not just about where to check return codes and handle error conditions. Actually, it turns out that exception safety is rarely about writing 'try' and 'catch' -- and the more rarely the better. Also, never forget that exception safety affects a piece of code's design; it is never just an afterthought that can be retrofitted with a few extra catch statements as if for seasoning.