I have a head-cold (hence the possibly obvious answer to this question) and
a block of code as such:
function checkResponder(e:Event = null):void
{
try
{
bPollingDatabase = true;
updateListArray();
}
catch (err:Error)
{
//
}
}
Now considering there is no code in the 'catch' block,
I *think* that if that array is built up out of a URLRequest or something
and the URL to call is down, a finally would catch that and the error
wouldn't. But I'm not positive about that.
On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 10:02 PM, SJF sjf...@gmail.com wrote:
I have a head-cold (hence the possibly obvious
Actually, in some instances that block of code might generate a
runtime error, in which case, to prevent Flash from outputting the
runtime error, there is a try catch block.
On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 7:02 PM, SJF sjf...@gmail.com wrote:
I have a head-cold (hence the possibly obvious answer to
Now considering there is no code in the 'catch' block,
there can be absolutely no benefit whatsoever to using
try-catch-finally in the above instance.
Well, it'll swallow the exception; that might be considered by some to
be a benefit, although it's bad form to handle exceptions that way.
Not saying it's a good thing, just laying out what it's accomplishing.
Seeing as Flash generates some pretty ugly looking runtime errors, I
usually like to display errors on my own terms, such as
catch (err:Error){
ErrorManager.showError(There was a problem communicating with the
server,
5 matches
Mail list logo
