Its still got bad idea stamped all over it. The object would not get constructed, this is almost certainly doc'd somewhere.
The following code outputs the string "null" using System; public class MyClass { public static void Main() { A a = null; try { a = new A(); } catch(Exception){} if (a==null) Console.WriteLine("null"); else Console.WriteLine("not null"); } } class A { public A() { throw new Exception(""); } } > -----Original Message----- > From: Chris Snyder [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 31 March 2004 15:30 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [ADVANCED-DOTNET] Exceptions in Constructors > > I have a (hopefully) simple question. > > In a nutshell, as a C++ developer, various people hammered > into my brain that throwing an exception in a constructor > (whether intentionally or by performing some action which > would cause an exception to be thrown) was extremely bad. > However, my research seems to indicate that .NET handles > constructors differently, allowing developers to perform > actions in a constructor that may result in exceptions being > thrown, or to <gasp> even throw an exception themselves. > > Thoughts? > > Thanks a lot, > Chris Snyder > > =================================== > This list is hosted by DevelopMentor(r) 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 > =================================== 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