Jul 21, 2016 · Does using the 'catch, when' feature make exception handling faster because the handler is skipped as such and the stack unwinding can happen much earlier as when …

22 If there is a hierarchy of exceptions you can use the base class to catch all subclasses of exceptions. In the degenerate case you can catch all Java exceptions with:

I want to know if I can safely write catch () only to catch all System.Exception types. Or do I've to stick to catch (Exception) to accomplish this. I know for other exception types (e.g.

If you re-throw an exception within the catch block, and that exception is caught inside of another catch block, everything executes according to the documentation.

Is there a way to catch both exceptions and only set WebId = Guid.Empty once? The given example is rather simple, as it's only a GUID, but imagine code where you modify an object …

Nope, (or ) is 's friend and always there as part of try/catch. However, it is perfectly valid to have them empty, like in your example. In the comments in your example code (If func1 throws …

37 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 …

I think that this only works if you raise and then catch the exception, but not if you try getting the traceback before raising an exception object that you create, which you might want to do in …

Sep 27, 2008 · One related and confusing thing to know is that in a try- [catch]-finally structure, a finally block may throw an exception and if so, any exception thrown by the try or catch block …

try/catch should enclose exactly what you want to capture an exception for. If you're looking explicitly for errors coming from this.User.create() then you wouldn't put anything else inside …