In Java you would say “throw e;” (to rethrow the same exception you just caught.)
You wouldn’t just say “throw”
Or you could also throw some other exception. But the syntax requires you specify what it is you are throwing. (And sane in C++, where you could throw any object, even a primitive.)
Wildly, in C# you can do either and it has different results. I believe a bare throw doesn’t append to the stack trace, it keeps the original trace intact, while throw e updates the stack trace (stored on the exception object) with the catch and rethrow.
In C#, you can only throw objects whose class derives from Exception.
You can do either, but you usually do neither. The best way is to throw a new exception for your situation and add the caught exception as an inner exception. Because rethrowing resets the stack trace, removing the context from an exception message that is often pretty vague, and “bouncing” with throw; doesn’t tell the next exception handler that you already handled (part of) the exception.
In Java you would say “throw e;” (to rethrow the same exception you just caught.)
You wouldn’t just say “throw”
Or you could also throw some other exception. But the syntax requires you specify what it is you are throwing. (And sane in C++, where you could throw any object, even a primitive.)
So that was my question.
Wildly, in C# you can do either and it has different results. I believe a bare
throwdoesn’t append to the stack trace, it keeps the original trace intact, whilethrow eupdates the stack trace (stored on the exception object) with the catch and rethrow.In C#, you can only throw objects whose class derives from Exception.
You can do either, but you usually do neither. The best way is to throw a new exception for your situation and add the caught exception as an inner exception. Because rethrowing resets the stack trace, removing the context from an exception message that is often pretty vague, and “bouncing” with
throw;doesn’t tell the next exception handler that you already handled (part of) the exception.