Chris, CS> In a nutshell, as a C++ developer, various people hammered CS> into my brain that throwing an exception in a constructor CS> (whether intentionally or by performing some action which CS> would cause an exception to be thrown) was extremely bad. CS> However, my research seems to indicate that .NET handles CS> constructors differently, allowing developers to perform CS> actions in a constructor that may result in exceptions being CS> thrown, or to <gasp> even throw an exception themselves.
Throwing exceptions from instance constructors poses no problem. However, throwing them from *static* constructors is not a good idea, since, the static constructors, as opposed to instance constructors, aren't called explicitly, so there's no nice mechanism to handle them. HTH, Stefan =================================== This list is hosted by DevelopMentorŪ http://www.develop.com Some .NET courses you may be interested in: NEW! Guerrilla ASP.NET, 17 May 2004, in Los Angeles http://www.develop.com/courses/gaspdotnetls View archives and manage your subscription(s) at http://discuss.develop.com
