When I have
try
{
}
catch
{
MessageBox("There was an exception");
}
I want to transform it to:
(Of course I dont do all that inline, but the catch needs to create an Exception variable)
Proposed Solution:
Add a "name Exception" refactoring and an inverse "remove redundant exception declaration" for cases where you have
try
{
}
catch(Exception)
{
MessageBox("There was an exception");
}
or
try
{
}
catch(Exception e)
{
MessageBox("There was an exception");
}
i.e., where the exception variable is unused
(I think the equivalance may only be valid for .NET 2.0+ - there was a time when catch() and catch(Exception) didnt translated SEH and other SystemExceptions or something)
for now I do End, "(vx",space (Then I try to do Ctrl-A which doesnt work yet), "ex"
Ticket
S131074
Visible to All Users
Disclaimer: The information provided on DevExpress.com and affiliated web properties (including the DevExpress Support Center) is provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Developer Express Inc disclaims all warranties, either express or implied, including the warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose. Please refer to the DevExpress.com Website Terms of Use for more information in this regard.
Confidential Information: Developer Express Inc does not wish to receive, will not act to procure, nor will it solicit, confidential or proprietary materials and information from you through the DevExpress Support Center or its web properties. Any and all materials or information divulged during chats, email communications, online discussions, Support Center tickets, or made available to Developer Express Inc in any manner will be deemed NOT to be confidential by Developer Express Inc. Please refer to the DevExpress.com Website Terms of Use for more information in this regard.
Based on http://blogs.msdn.com/clrteam/archive/2009/02/19/why-catch-exception-empty-catch-is-bad.aspx, catch and catch(Exception) are not equivalent… Which renders much of this suggestion incorrect, apologies!