在当前线程上模拟一个未捕获的异常是很容易的。这将触发未捕获异常的常规行为，从而在语义上完成工作。然而，它并不一定会停止当前线程的执行，因为实际上并没有抛出异常。

Throwable exception = /* ... */;
Thread currentThread = Thread.currentThread();
Thread.UncaughtExceptionHandler uncaughtExceptionHandler =
    currentThread.getUncaughtExceptionHandler();
uncaughtExceptionHandler.uncaughtException(currentThread, exception);
// May be reachable, depending on the uncaught exception handler.

这实际上在(非常罕见的)情况下很有用，例如当需要适当的错误处理时，但该方法从捕获(并丢弃)任何Throwable的框架中调用。

在当前线程上模拟一个未捕获的异常是很容易的。这将触发未捕获异常的常规行为，从而在语义上完成工作。然而，它并不一定会停止当前线程的执行，因为实际上并没有抛出异常。

Throwable exception = /* ... */;
Thread currentThread = Thread.currentThread();
Thread.UncaughtExceptionHandler uncaughtExceptionHandler =
    currentThread.getUncaughtExceptionHandler();
uncaughtExceptionHandler.uncaughtException(currentThread, exception);
// May be reachable, depending on the uncaught exception handler.

这实际上在(非常罕见的)情况下很有用，例如当需要适当的错误处理时，但该方法从捕获(并丢弃)任何Throwable的框架中调用。

在这种例外情况下，显然必须使用System.exit(Integer.MIN_VALUE);从构造函数中，因为如果抛出这样的异常，就会发生这种情况;)

Java中唯一的chucknorrisexception应该是OutOfMemoryError和StackOverflowError。

实际上，您可以“捕获”它们，这意味着在抛出异常时将执行catch(OutOfMemoryError ex)，但该块将自动将异常重新抛出给调用者。

我不认为公共类ChuckNorrisError extends Error可以解决这个问题，但是你可以尝试一下。我没有找到关于扩展错误的文档

是否有可能在java中构造一段代码，使假设的java.lang. chucknorrisexception无法捕获?

是的，这就是答案:设计你的java.lang.ChuckNorrisException，使它不是java.lang.Throwable的实例。为什么?从定义上讲，不可抛出的对象是不可捕获的，因为你永远不能捕获永远不能抛出的东西。

Two fundamental problems with exception handling in Java are that it uses the type of an exception to indicate whether action should be taken based upon it, and that anything which takes action based upon an exception (i.e. "catch"es it) is presumed to resolve the underlying condition. It would be useful to have a means by which an exception object could decide which handlers should execute, and whether the handlers that have executed so far have cleaned things up enough for the present method to satisfy its exit conditions. While this could be used to make "uncatchable" exceptions, two bigger uses would be to (1) make exceptions which will only be considered handled when they're caught by code that actually knows how to deal with them, and (2) allow for sensible handling of exceptions which occur in a finally block (if a FooException during a finally block during the unwinding of a BarException, both exceptions should propagate up the call stack; both should be catchable, but unwinding should continue until both have been caught). Unfortunately, I don't think there would be any way to make existing exception-handling code work that way without breaking things.