On 12 October 2016 at 18:27, Søren Berg Glasius <[email protected]> wrote:
> This question should be asked in [email protected]
>
> And the answer to the question must be, no. But you could check if
Well, strictly speaking, that's not quite true ;-)
@groovy.transform.InheritConstructors
class MySpecialException extends Throwable {}
try {
try {
throw new MySpecialException("foo")
} catch (ex) {
println "never got here!"
}
} catch (MySpecialException ex) {
println "did catch that $ex"
}
but I don't think I would recommend that :-)
Cheers,
Dinko
>
> } catch (exception) {
> if(exception instance MySpecialException) throw exception
> println "bar caught $exception"
> }
>
>
>
> Best regards,
> Søren Berg Glasius
>
> Hedevej 1, Gl. Rye, 8680 Ry, Denmark
> Mobile: +45 40 44 91 88, Skype: sbglasius
> --- Press ESC once to quit - twice to save the changes.
>
> From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
> Reply: [email protected] <[email protected]>
> Date: 12. oktober 2016 at 18.24.20
> To: [email protected] <[email protected]>
> Subject: non-catchable exception?
>
> Hello there,
>
> is it possible to create an exception which will *not* be caught by a
> general handler, only by a specific one? So that e.g., the following code
>
> ===
> class MySpecialException extends Exception { /* whatever magic needed here
> */ }
> ...
> def foo() {
> throw new MySpecialException()
> }
> def bar() {
> try {
> foo()
> } catch (exception) {
> println "bar caught $exception"
> }
> }
> static main(args) {
> try {
> bar()
> } catch (MySpecialException special) {
> println "special exception"
> }
> }
> ===
>
> would print out "special exception" and *not* "bar caught..."?
>
> The reason is that the code I at the moment work with contains _lots_ of
> generic try/catch harnesses at different levels of code; they generally
> report the error caught and then go on processing the input. Now I would
> need a „special” exception which would not be caught by any of them, to
> abort the processing immediately.
>
> Adding a separate "catch (MySpecialException goup) { throw goup }" statement
> to each of all those already existing harnesses -- which would be, I guess,
> conceptually the right thing to do -- would be rather at the inconvenient
> side.
>
> Thanks,
> OC
>
