Jul 21, 2016 · Does using the 'catch, when' feature make exception handling faster because the handler is skipped as such and the stack unwinding can happen much earlier as when compared to handling …

I recommend using catch(Exception ex) when you plan to reuse the exception variable only, and catch (alone) in other cases. Just a matter of style for the second use case, but if personally find it more …

Jul 27, 2014 · 62 You cannot use try-catch statements to handle exceptions thrown asynchronously, as the function has "returned" before any exception is thrown. You should instead use the promise.then …

The third try-catch block is different. When it throws the exception, it will change the source and the stack trace, so that it will appear that the exception has been thrown from this method, from that very …

In the second scheme, if the promise p rejects, then the .catch() handler is called. If you return a normal value or a promise that eventually resolves from the .catch() handler (thus "handling" the error), then …

Sep 11, 2014 · The try/catch approach can't manage with common resource allocation/dealocation tasks such as sp_OACreate / sp_OADestroy, sp_xml_preparedocument / sp_xml_removedocument, …

Jan 5, 2017 · 2 Instead of try/catch you can check to see if the last command ran successfully or not and then handle it:

try { WebId = new Guid(queryString["web"]); } catch (FormatException) { WebId = Guid.Empty; } catch (OverflowException) { WebId = Guid.Empty; } Is there a way to catch both exceptions and only set …

Apr 14, 2014 · This is my first time writing transaction, is it correct/best practice to have the TRY/CATCH block inside the transaction or should the transaction be inside the TRY block?

Oct 22, 2015 · It depends, if you don't throw another exception in .catch, then the promise will resolve to what the function in .catch returns, and sometimes we want to handle exceptions in other place, e.g: …