> Just playing with an idea for something that might be a more > achievable request, how about if we could specify a list of > exceptions that the debugger should NOT break on? The thought is > prompted a bit by the range of control available in Visual Studio > over which exception types it catches. > > If you're using your own exception subclasses, this gives fairly > tight control and the list would only be scanned when the debugger is > handling a break on exception (otherwise it continues as if you > pressed resume). > > I agree, the number of times I've sat stupidly blinking at my code > when it has stopped at an exception, or break, .... > > This is one of those annoying situations where progressing further > into a good programming practice (robust code using exceptions to > handle situations) derails a very useful debugging tool. > > Andy > _______________________________________________ > > That does sound handy. I certainly don't like having the blanket on/off behavior, since I'm highly prone to simple mistakes. _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe or switch delivery mode: <http://www.realsoftware.com/support/listmanager/>
Search the archives: <http://support.realsoftware.com/listarchives/lists.html>
