Sigh

campkev

catch (Exception ex)

{

throw;

}

psiphiorg

Could be used as a breakpoint.

davidh

Pim

Yes, or they had some code in there that they removed later, for writing to a log file or whatever.

KattMan

let me guess, you only posted this to make it look like you know better.

There could have been something in the finally that they wanted to make sure would run. The only way to do this even when you don't want to handle the exception directly is to have a catch that simply throws.

For example:

        Dim x As Integer
        Dim y As Integer
        Dim z As Double

        Try
            x = 1
            y = 0
            z = x \ y

        Catch ex As Exception
            Throw
        Finally
            MessageBox.Show("Made it here.")
        End Try

TwelveBaud1

@KattMan said:

let me guess, you only posted this to make it look like you know better.

There could have been something in the finally that they wanted to make sure would run. The only way to do this even when you don't want to handle the exception directly is to have a catch that simply throws.

For example: <snip>

Well, neither Java nor VB .NET (nor the CIL) require a catch as part of a try. You must have at least one catch, finally, or fault block, but you don't need one of each and none of them individually is required. My guess is that

								        psiphiorg is right and they were using it as a possible breakpoint location, or that they were trying to stop stack frame elision (which wouldn't actually work if you did that). </p>

@TwelveBaud said:

@KattMan said:
let me guess, you only posted this to make it look like you know better.

There could have been something in the finally that they wanted to make sure would run. The only way to do this even when you don't want to handle the exception directly is to have a catch that simply throws.

For example: <snip>
Well, neither Java nor VB .NET (nor the CIL) require a catch as part of a try. You must have at least one catch, finally, or fault block, but you don't need one of each and none of them individually is required. My guess is that
								 psiphiorg is right and they were using it as a possible breakpoint location, or that they were trying to stop stack frame elision (which wouldn't actually work if you did that). </blockquote>&nbsp;Or they could have thought the same thing as KattMan in which case it is a (minor) WTF.

morbiuswilters

@KattMan said:

let me guess, you only posted this to make it look like you know better.

Isn't that the entire point of posting a thread here?

NSCoder

Sigh indeed. I wish people would at least attempt to say something about the WTF in the subject.

SlyEcho

Better version:

catch
{
throw;
}

Worse version:

catch (Exception ex)
{
throw ex;
}

Best version:

campkev

@KattMan said:

let me guess, you only posted this to make it look like you know better.

There could have been something in the finally that they wanted to make sure would run. The only way to do this even when you don't want to handle the exception directly is to have a catch that simply throws.

For example:

        Dim x As Integer
        Dim y As Integer
        Dim z As Double

        Try
            x = 1
            y = 0
            z = x \ y

        Catch ex As Exception
            Throw
        Finally
            MessageBox.Show("Made it here.")
        End Try

Um, no.

tgape

@campkev said:

catch (Exception ex)

{
throw;
}

That reminds me of one of the earlier examples of Java code I've seen. Except that it did that in nearly every fricking method. Also, it did indents:

    <font color="#0000ff">catch</font> (<font color="#2b91af">Exception</font> ex) 
    {
        <font color="#0000ff">throw</font>; 
    }