Hello Cristiano, Friday, November 7, 2003, 4:15:06 PM, you wrote:
> Hi Andi, >> I've stated my opinion in the past (search the archives) and I don't think >> it'd be feasible (nor critical) to implement this... > Do you agree that if we don't have finally we should have a way to catch all > exceptions ? > Let me explain: > If you have a library that can raise a huge number of different > exceptions and you don't have finally, you should treat all exceptions at > the same try/catch block, and rethrow the exceptions that should propagate. > If you have finally, you can treat just the exceptions you need and > leave the others to be treated by the caller. > For example: if you don't have finally, don't have a "catch-all" clause > and lock some resouce inside a try block, you need to unlock it: > 1) in the try block: before every return statement after the resource allocation > 2) write a catch block for all possible exceptions that could be > raised and put the code before every return/throw statement (this could be > dozens of times) > 3) at the end of the try/catch block > If you have finally, you just put the same code inside the finally > block. No need to catch every exceptions one-by-one, no need to rethrow > exceptions that shouldn't be caught, no need to make code redundancy... > I know it's not critical, but IMHO it's important. I hope I was clear enough... :-) Regarding catch all the current idea of most developers i spoke to on the conf was that every exception should inherit from the buildin class exception. And therefor a simple catch(Exception $e) would do the trick. -- Best regards, Marcus mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
