ID:2207986
 Feb 3 2017, 2:47 am (Edited on Apr 28 2020, 1:10 am)
|
|||||||
| |||||||
.
| |||||||
|
Feb 7 2017, 9:54 am
|
|
PJB3005
 |
How about we fix try catch being worthless because it ruins stack traces first?
|
PJB3005 wrote:
How about we fix try catch being worthless because it ruins stack traces first? What do you mean exactly? | |
You mean re-throwing? I'm gonna need more info than that.
| |
Try/catch seems really hacked together since you can't reliably error up into the stack
| |
I'm really not sure I follow your example. Can you show me some of the code involved so I understand how try/catch and throw are being used in this instance?
| |
Still not getting it. Maybe show me an example that shows all the procs (a, b, c) and how they're called and how they end up in the stack trace. Since this issue transcends a single proc, logically any explanation for it requires multiple procs to make sense.
| |
Okay, I think I understand this now. As I understand it, what you want is for the re-throw to basically act as if the exception had never been caught, at least as far as stack trace purposes and the error message go. Maybe the catch block would do some other stuff before the re-throw, but the exception when it's finally received--or not received--should act like the catch was never there.
| |
If you want to make a separate feature request for the try/catch thing (or if there is one already, just let me know the link to it), I can close that for the next release.
| |