Hi Matt, Text wrapping got the best of you I suspect ... The 'x' from the .aspx extension was wrapped onto the next line of the message.
Cheers, Trevor -----Original Message----- From: ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com [mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com] On Behalf Of Matt Sent: Wednesday, 2 June 2010 10:50 AM To: ozDotNet Subject: Re: Ignoring excpetions in catch LOL, when I tried that link, I got an exception(404) AND IT WASN'T HANDLED, ROFL. I guess that's your point! Regards, Matt ---------------------------------------------------------------------- "Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place. Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are, by definition, not smart enough to debug it." Brian W. Kernighan James Chapman-Smith wrote: > Handling exceptions requires exceptional programming - literally & > figuratively. > > I find that there are very few times that you actually need to handle > exceptions. Very few. > > Rampant exceptional handling creates more nightmares than it solves. It > makes debugging almost impossible as your code stops at the wrong lines in > the wrong classes in the wrong projects. > > No, my friends, exception handling is generally poorly handled by all but > the most experienced developers. > > Have a read of this article from Eric Lippert - > http://blogs.msdn.com/b/ericlippert/archive/2008/09/10/vexing-exceptions.asp > x - he sums it up nicely I think. > > :-) > > James. > > -----Original Message----- > From: ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com [mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com] > On Behalf Of Arjang Assadi > Sent: Tuesday, 1 June 2010 10:09 > To: ozDotNet > Subject: Ignoring excpetions in catch > > 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 > > > >
