Timeline for Is catching general exceptions really a bad thing?

7 events

when toggle format	what		by	license	comment
Nov 20, 2022 at 11:20	history	edited	Glorfindel	CC BY-SA 4.0	broken link fixed, cf. https://meta.stackoverflow.com/a/406565/4751173
May 23, 2017 at 11:33	history	edited	CommunityBot		replaced http://stackoverflow.com/ with https://stackoverflow.com/
Apr 21, 2015 at 18:33	comment	added	supercat		That's true, but one can (and generally should) guard `finally` blocks against exceptions that one can realistically expect to occur in such a way that the original and new exceptions both get logged. Unfortunately, doing that will often require memory allocation, which could cause failures of its own.
Apr 21, 2015 at 18:13	comment	added	Martin Ba		@supercat - true enough, but that's pretty much true of any other general System exception, when stuff goes bad in any finally block.
Apr 21, 2015 at 18:05	comment	added	supercat		A major problem with `OutOfMemoryException` is that there's no nice way code can be sure that it "only" indicates the failure of a particular allocation one was prepared to have fail. It's possible that some other more serious exception was thrown, and an `OutOfMemoryException` occurred during stack unwinding from that other exception. Java may have been late to the party with its "try-with-resources", but it handles exceptions during stack unwinding a bit better than .NET.
Jan 28, 2015 at 9:29	history	edited	Martin Ba	CC BY-SA 3.0	added CES / Exception Filters
Dec 9, 2014 at 14:37	history	answered	Martin Ba	CC BY-SA 3.0