What code lays behind C++ exception?
In C and C++ you can return a single variable inside a function. Now in the case that variable is returning data, and not an error code, you can use exceptions. But how is that possible? If you data being returned is the data you tell your function to return, then there is practically no way for the function calling it to know it’s success (because the return is used for data, and not an error code). Also, the ability for a exception to literally stop the function in the middle of the code to return the error. How do C++ compilers achieve this?
What code lays behind C++ exception?
In C and C++ you can return a single variable inside a function. Now in the case that variable is returning data, and not an error code, you can use exceptions. But how is that possible? If you data being returned is the data you tell your function to return, then there is practically no way for the function calling it to know it’s success (because the return is used for data, and not an error code). Also, the ability for a exception to literally stop the function in the middle of the code to return the error. How do C++ compilers achieve this?
What code lays behind C++ exception?
In C and C++ you can return a single variable inside a function. Now in the case that variable is returning data, and not an error code, you can use exceptions. But how is that possible? If you data being returned is the data you tell your function to return, then there is practically no way for the function calling it to know it’s success (because the return is used for data, and not an error code). Also, the ability for a exception to literally stop the function in the middle of the code to return the error. How do C++ compilers achieve this?
What are good ways of balancing informative exceptions and clean code?
With our public SDK, we tend to want to give very informative messages about why an exception occurs. For example:
Exception handling in a program that needs to run 24/7
I have read that we should only catch exceptions that can be handled, which makes catching the base exception class (C# in this case) a bad idea (on top of other reasons). I am currently part of a project in which I so far have yet to see anything but the base exception being caught. I mentioned that it is considered bad practice to do so, but the response was “This service needs to run 24/7, so that is the way it is.”.
Using configuration to determine whether to handle exception or bubble it up
On a side project I’m working on I came up with a way of handling exceptions that’s adjustable by configuration. So a try/catch block might look like this:
Using configuration to determine whether to handle exception or bubble it up
On a side project I’m working on I came up with a way of handling exceptions that’s adjustable by configuration. So a try/catch block might look like this:
Using configuration to determine whether to handle exception or bubble it up
On a side project I’m working on I came up with a way of handling exceptions that’s adjustable by configuration. So a try/catch block might look like this:
Using configuration to determine whether to handle exception or bubble it up
On a side project I’m working on I came up with a way of handling exceptions that’s adjustable by configuration. So a try/catch block might look like this:
Partial recovery from an Exception [duplicate]
This question already has answers here: Efficient try / catch block usage? (6 answers) Is rethrowing an exception leaking an abstraction? (4 answers) Closed 10 years ago. I have seen Exception Handling blocks that they were throwing the recently caught Exception in the catch block. Something like: } catch ( Exception $e ) { // […]