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 …

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 …

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 …

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 …

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 …

19 Cleaner code using async/await with Promise catch handler. From what I see, this has been a long-standing problem that has bugged (both meanings) many programmers and their code. …

Putting a return in a catch block might be hard to read because you expect the return to bypass the finally statement. The same could be said of putting a return block in the try block. Return …

TRY/CATCH traps more. It's hugely and amazingly better. DECLARE @foo int SET @foo = 'bob' --batch aborting pre-SQL 2005 SELECT @@ERROR GO SELECT @@ERROR --detects 245. …