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

Reply via email to