Is there a benefit to JUST a "throw" in a catch?

Question

Been having a "heated debate" with a colleague about his practice of wrapping most of his functions in a try/catch but the catch has JUST a "throw" in it e.g.

Private sub foo()
    try
        'Do something'
    catch
        throw 'And nothing else!'
    End Try
End Sub

My thought was to not even bother (assuming you don't need to do anything at this point) - the exception would bubble to the next exception handler in a parent member.

The only argument that sounded plausible was that sometimes exceptions weren't caught and your code stopped (in debug mode) with the current line highlighted in green...and that this may be something to do with multiple threads? Best practice does state "an exception handler for each thread" but mostly we work single-threaded.

The good thing may be it could be useful in debug mode to not suddenly pop out to a parent member (yes, Joel!) - you'd move to the "throw" statement and be able to examine your locals. But then your code would be "littered with try/catch/throws" (to quote another thread here)?

And what sort of overhead would be involved in adding try/catch/throws everywhere if no exception occurs (i.e. should you avoid try/catches in tight loops)?

Answer 1

The reason you have a lone throw inside a catch rather than throwing a new exception is because this causes the original stack trace/exception data to be preserved. And one reason you might do this is because you can now set a break-point there for debugging.

Answer 2

I would only ever do this while debugging an issue - and I'd remove the code again before checking in. It can occasionally be handy to put a breakpoint in to stop at a particular stack level if an exception is thrown. Beyond that though - no.

Answer 3

Doing it always by default looks like bad design. But there might be reasons for catching and throwing, for example it you want to throw a different exception.

Answer 4

In practice, my thought is, if you don't intend to handle the error, don't catch it.

Answer 5

Microsoft recommends not to catch an exception when the only thing you do is to rethrow it immediately (i dont remember the source for now). Your code should only catch exceptions that you want to handle for clean up things or similar actions.

So generally its not a good practice to catch and rethrow an exception.

Reasons for catching and replacing it with another exception might be

• Logging
• Hiding sensitive information from the caller (Stacktrace, exception details)

And for debugging you might want to change your "Break when an exception is:"-Handler (Press Ctrl+Alt+e) the value "thrown" on selected CLR Exceptions.

You might want to take a look at the entlib exception handler block (EHB), with which you can establish a pattern on how to deal with exceptions in your code.

Regarding your question on performance i think its not a propblem to have many try/catch blocks in your code but you will get performance hits when your code raises and catches many exceptions.

Answer 6

Yes, it's handy for putting a breakpoint in the catch.

An alternate and cleaner way is to breakpoint in the constructor of the object you're throwing. You're seeing the program state at a point closer to the source of the error.

Answer 7

You do not need a catch clause to catch exceptions in the Visual Studio debugger. Choose Debug > Exceptions, and select which exceptions you want to catch, all of them if necessary.

Answer 8

If you catch an exception and replace it with another exception, you should typically wrap the original exception in the new one. This is usually done by passing the old exception into the new one's constructor. That way you can dig in as much as necessary to figure out what happened. The main case when you wouldn't is when you need to hide data for security reasons. In these cases, you should try to log the exception data before you clear it out.

The rationale I have seen for wrapping exceptions with new ones, rather than just letting them bubble up the stack, is that exceptions should be at the same symantic level as the methods they are coming from. If I call AuthenticateUser, I don't want to see an SQL exception. Instead, I should see some exception whose name tells me the authentication task could not be completed. If I dig into this exception's inner exceptions, I could then find the SQL exception. Personally, I am still weighing the pros and cons of doing this.

Answer 9

Since there is zero error handling, this catch is useless. If there was logging or some cleanup done sure, but in this situation I'd get rid of the try/catch.

Answer 10

This can also be useful if you need to inspect something about the exception, and do something for one circumstance or throw it for other circumstances. For instance, if you need to inspect the error number in a SQLException. You can perform a certain action if the error number is one you're prepared to handle. For others you can simply "throw" it so the stack trace is preserved, as mentioned above.