On 06/04/2007, at 10:02 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > It's annoying that there's no "Break on Unhandled Exceptions" feature, > but alas, that's apparently a tricky feature to implement.
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 _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe or switch delivery mode: <http://www.realsoftware.com/support/listmanager/> Search the archives: <http://support.realsoftware.com/listarchives/lists.html>
