IIRC in the Reflector output of the Framework there are a number of
similar constructs.
Some can be explained (such as the ones in the Microsoft.VisualBasic
namespace) where they explicitly WANT to lose the extra history so the
exception looks like it is local to the VB routine and not from
something deeper in the framework.
But there are other versions of this construct, including with just
Throw, where I cannot confirm the reason. Of course, the shared source
may explain it it due to logging and other code being commented out in
the live build.
--
Regards,
Mark Hurd, B.Sc.(Ma.)(Hons.)
On 11 March 2011 08:57, Noon Silk <noonsli...@gmail.com> wrote:
> You did not mean to send this only to me, I'm sure :P
>
> Anyway, the point is that you can log something and then throw it up
> the chain for someone else to deal with. It's appropriate to log
> errors, but just because you log doesn't mean you can actually do
> anything better than crash (upwards).
>
> I think it should also be purely "throw"; as I believe "throw ex"
> loses some history.
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 9:24 AM, Arjang Assadi <arjang.ass...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> What is the point of catching and throwing the same exception e.g. :
>>
>> catch (Exception ex)
>> {
>> throw ex;
>> }
>>
>> ?
>>
>> Thank you in advance
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Arjang
>>
>
> --
> Noon Silk
>
