C# Exception Handling Fall Through [duplicate]
Possible Duplicate:
Catch multiple Exceptions at once?
Is there any way in C# to easily achieve the following pseduo-code:
try
{
...
}
catch ( ExceptionTypeA, ExceptionTypeB, ExceptionTypeC as ex)
{
... same code for all threw
}
开发者_如何转开发
Or
try
{
...
}
catch ( ExceptionTypeA ex )
catch ( ExceptionTypeB ex )
catch ( ExceptionTypeC ex )
{
... same code for all exceptions of A, B or C
}
I guess what I'm saying would be great would be fall-through on exception types.
The problem with the syntax as mentioned (with an ex
) is: what properties/members should ex
have? Different exception types are not necessarily compatible, unless there is inheritance involved (in which case, catch the least-derived that you care about).
The only current option is to just use Exception ex
(or similar) and check (is
/as
) inside the handler.
Or; refactor the common code into a method that can be used by all three?
In short, no. I can think of two three alternatives:
Catch each exception, and call a common method:
try
{
// throw
}
catch ( ExceptionTypeA ex )
{
HandleException();
}
catch ( ExceptionTypeB ex )
{
HandleException();
}
catch ( ExceptionTypeC ex )
{
HandleException();
}
void HandleException()
{
}
Or catch everything, and use an if statement on the type:
try
{
// throw
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
if (ex is ArgumentException || ex is NullReferenceException || ex is FooException)
{
// Handle
}
else
{
throw
}
}
EDIT: OR, you could do something like this:
List<Type> exceptionsToHandle = new List<Type>{ typeof(ArgumentException), typeof(NullReferenceException), typeof(FooException) };
try
{
// throw
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
if (exceptionsToHandle.Contains(ex.GetType()))
{
// Handle
}
else
{
throw
}
}
You can catch a general exception and then examine the type, e.g.:
catch (Exception ex)
{
if (ex is ExceptionTypeA ||
ex is ExceptionTypeB )
{
/* your code here */
}
else
{
throw;
}
}
Edit: in line with other answers I'd be looking to clarify what's going on by pulling out a method - but rather than individual catches and a common method, I'd probably introduce a method to clarify what the contents of the if statement is doing. So instead of
if (ex is ExceptionTypeA || ex is ExceptionTypeB )
it'd become something like:
if (IsRecoverableByDoingWhatever(ex))
which I think would clarify the intent more than pulling out the handler code (although that might be useful to do too).
Wrap the repetitive code in a method.
try
{
...
}
catch ( ExceptionTypeA ex )
{
DoSomething();
}
catch ( ExceptionTypeB ex )
{
DoSomething();
}
catch ( ExceptionTypeC ex )
{
DoSomething();
}
catch ( Exception ex )
{
DoTheDefaultSomething();
}
If you need to use some variables from the scope of try
, use a nested function. That is, a lambda or an anonymous delegate:
int x = ...;
Action<Exception> handler = delegate(Exception ex)
{
// Same code for all exceptions of A, B or C.
// You can use variable x here too.
};
try
{
...
}
catch (ExceptionTypeA ex) { handler(ex); }
catch (ExceptionTypeB ex) { handler(ex); }
catch (ExceptionTypeC ex) { handler(ex); }
If you have access to the code that define the custom exceptions, one possible solution is:
Create a custom exception type.
public abstract class CustomException : Exception
{
//Do some stuff here
}
Then make all your custom exceptions derive from this base type:
public class MyException1 : CustomException
{
// Do some stuff here
}
public class MyException2 : CustomException
{
// Do some stuff here
}
You are done. So now, all you need in your client code is to catch the custom exception base class.
try
{
//Do something that throws a custom exception
}
catch (CustomException ex)
{
// Do some shared behavior for all the custom exceptions
}
You would derive TypeA, B, C from a common base class if this is reasonable. And catch the base class exception.
Not a clean way. You could just catch System.Exception and then check the type at runtime, ie.
try
{
...
}
catch (System.Exception ex)
{
if (ex is ExceptionTypeA or ExceptionTypeB or ExceptionTypeC)
{
... same code ...
}
else
throw;
}
... but this is pretty ugly. It would be nicer to, as João Angelo said, have separate catch blocks for each exception type, but call a common method in each of them.
精彩评论