To my mind, the fundamental question should be whether one would expect that the caller would want to continue normal program flow if a condition occurs. If you don't know, either have separate doSomething and trySomething methods, where the former returns an error and the latter does not, or have a routine that accepts a parameter to indicate whether an exception should be thrown if it fails). Consider a class to send commands to a remote system and report responses. Certain commands (e.g. restart) will cause the remote system to send a response but then be non-responsive for a certain length of time. It is thus useful to be able to send a "ping" command and find out whether the remote system responds in a reasonable length of time without having to throw an exception if it doesn't (the caller would probably expect that the first few "ping" attempts would fail, but one would eventually work). On the other hand, if one has a sequence of commands like:

  exchange_command("open tempfile");
  exchange_command("write tempfile data {whatever}");
  exchange_command("write tempfile data {whatever}");
  exchange_command("write tempfile data {whatever}");
  exchange_command("write tempfile data {whatever}");
  exchange_command("close tempfile");
  exchange_command("copy tempfile to realfile");

人们会希望任何操作的失败都能中止整个序列。虽然可以检查每个操作以确保操作成功，但如果命令失败，让exchange_command()例程抛出异常会更有帮助。

实际上，在上面的场景中，有一个参数来选择一些失败处理模式可能会有所帮助:从不抛出异常，仅为通信错误抛出异常，或者在命令没有返回“成功”指示的任何情况下抛出异常。

The simple answer is, whenever an operation is impossible (because of either application OR because it would violate business logic). If a method is invoked and it impossible to do what the method was written to do, throw an Exception. A good example is that constructors always throw ArgumentExceptions if an instance cannot be created using the supplied parameters. Another example is InvalidOperationException, which is thrown when an operation cannot be performed because of the state of another member or members of the class.

在您的情况下，如果调用Login(用户名，密码)这样的方法，如果用户名无效，抛出UserNameNotValidException或PasswordNotCorrectException(密码不正确)确实是正确的。用户不能使用提供的参数登录(即，这是不可能的，因为它将违反身份验证)，因此抛出异常。尽管我可能从ArgumentException继承了两个异常。

话虽如此，如果因为登录失败可能很常见而不希望抛出异常，一种策略是创建一个方法，该方法返回表示不同失败的类型。这里有一个例子:

{ // class
    ...

    public LoginResult Login(string user, string password)
    {
        if (IsInvalidUser(user))
        {
            return new UserInvalidLoginResult(user);
        }
        else if (IsInvalidPassword(user, password))
        {
            return new PasswordInvalidLoginResult(user, password);
        }
        else
        {
            return new SuccessfulLoginResult();
        }
    }

    ...
}

public abstract class LoginResult
{
    public readonly string Message;

    protected LoginResult(string message)
    {
        this.Message = message;
    }
}

public class SuccessfulLoginResult : LoginResult
{
    public SucccessfulLogin(string user)
        : base(string.Format("Login for user '{0}' was successful.", user))
    { }
}

public class UserInvalidLoginResult : LoginResult
{
    public UserInvalidLoginResult(string user)
        : base(string.Format("The username '{0}' is invalid.", user))
    { }
}

public class PasswordInvalidLoginResult : LoginResult
{
    public PasswordInvalidLoginResult(string password, string user)
        : base(string.Format("The password '{0}' for username '{0}' is invalid.", password, user))
    { }
}

Most developers are taught to avoid Exceptions because of the overhead caused by throwing them. It's great to be resource-conscious, but usually not at the expense of your application design. That is probably the reason you were told not to throw your two Exceptions. Whether to use Exceptions or not usually boils down to how frequently the Exception will occur. If it's a fairly common or an fairly expectable result, this is when most developers will avoid Exceptions and instead create another method to indicate failure, because of the supposed consumption of resources.

下面是一个使用Try()模式避免在类似刚刚描述的场景中使用exception的例子:

public class ValidatedLogin
{
    public readonly string User;
    public readonly string Password;

    public ValidatedLogin(string user, string password)
    {
        if (IsInvalidUser(user))
        {
            throw new UserInvalidException(user);
        }
        else if (IsInvalidPassword(user, password))
        {
            throw new PasswordInvalidException(password);
        }

        this.User = user;
        this.Password = password;
    }

    public static bool TryCreate(string user, string password, out ValidatedLogin validatedLogin)
    {
        if (IsInvalidUser(user) || 
            IsInvalidPassword(user, password))
        {
            return false;
        }

        validatedLogin = new ValidatedLogin(user, password);

        return true;
    }
}

异常是一种代价高昂的效果，例如，如果您有一个用户提供了无效的密码，那么通常更好的方法是返回一个失败标志，或其他一些无效的指示。

这是由于异常处理的方式，真正的错误输入和唯一的关键停止项应该是异常，而不是失败的登录信息。

抛出异常的经验法则非常简单。当你的代码进入UNRECOVERABLE INVALID状态时，你可以这样做。如果数据被泄露，或者您无法回溯到目前为止发生的处理，那么您必须终止它。你还能做什么呢?您的处理逻辑最终将在其他地方失败。如果你能以某种方式恢复，那么就这样做，不要抛出异常。

在你的特定情况下，如果你被迫做一些愚蠢的事情，比如接受提款，然后才检查用户/密码，你应该通过抛出一个异常来终止这个过程，通知发生了一些不好的事情，并防止进一步的损害。

“PasswordNotCorrectException”不是一个使用异常的好例子。用户输入错误的密码是意料之中的，所以在我看来，这几乎不是个例外。您甚至可能从中恢复，显示一个漂亮的错误消息，因此这只是一个有效性检查。

未处理的异常将最终停止执行——这是好事。如果返回false、null或错误代码，则必须自己处理程序的状态。如果您忘记检查某个地方的条件，您的程序可能会继续使用错误的数据运行，并且您可能很难弄清楚发生了什么以及在哪里发生了什么。

当然，空的catch语句也可能导致同样的问题，但至少发现这些语句更容易，而且不需要理解逻辑。

所以根据经验:

在您不想要或无法从错误中恢复的地方使用它们。

抛出异常会导致堆栈unwind，这对性能有一定影响(承认，现代托管环境在这方面有所改进)。仍然在嵌套的情况下反复抛出和捕获异常是一个坏主意。

可能比这更重要的是，例外是针对特殊情况的。它们不应该用于普通的控制流，因为这会损害代码的可读性。