Your example is a "catch all" which is bad practice. The example in the MS article catches a specific exception. This is not the same thing. There can be circumstances where you want to catch a specific exception and do nothing about it.
On 1 June 2010 10:38, Arjang Assadi <[email protected]> wrote: > I thought only the beginner programmers or programmers without any > pride in their work or self discipline would write code like this: > > try > { > //some code goes here > } > catch > { > //No code here just business as usual, do nothing about the exceptions! > } > > but maybe I am wrong, this http://support.microsoft.com/kb/319465 was > unexpected! > in the code in the above link are there any reasons for > 1)Checking the type, or more generally first checking that at least > the minimum requirements of an operations will be satisfied before > using a sledge hammer? > > 2)Using some other (better) code e.g. reflection etc. would be > definitely more preferable to ignoring excpetion? > > 3)Any other suggestions? > > Regards > > Arjang >
