我有一个这样的循环:

for (int i = 0; i < max; i++) {
    String myString = ...;
    float myNum = Float.parseFloat(myString);
    myFloats[i] = myNum;
}

这是一个方法的主要内容,该方法的唯一目的是返回浮点数数组。我想让这个方法在出现错误时返回null,所以我把循环放在try…Catch block,像这样:

try {
    for (int i = 0; i < max; i++) {
        String myString = ...;
        float myNum = Float.parseFloat(myString);
        myFloats[i] = myNum;
    }
} catch (NumberFormatException ex) {
    return null;
}

但后来我也想到试一试……Catch块在循环中,像这样:

for (int i = 0; i < max; i++) {
    String myString = ...;
    try {
        float myNum = Float.parseFloat(myString);
    } catch (NumberFormatException ex) {
        return null;
    }
    myFloats[i] = myNum;
}

是否有任何理由,性能或其他方面,更喜欢其中一个?


编辑:共识似乎是,将循环放在try/catch中更干净,可能是在它自己的方法中。然而,关于哪个速度更快仍存在争议。有人能测试一下并给出一个统一的答案吗?


当前回答

为try/catch设置一个特殊的堆栈框架会增加额外的开销,但是JVM可能能够检测到您正在返回并优化它。

根据迭代次数的不同,性能差异可能可以忽略不计。

然而,我同意其他人的观点,把它放在循环之外会让循环体看起来更干净。

如果您希望继续处理,而不是在存在无效数字时退出,那么您将希望代码位于循环中。

其他回答

我把0.02美元放进去。有时,您需要在稍后的代码中添加“finally”(因为谁会在第一次就写出完美的代码呢?)在这些情况下,将try/catch放在循环之外突然变得更有意义了。例如:

try {
    for(int i = 0; i < max; i++) {
        String myString = ...;
        float myNum = Float.parseFloat(myString);
        dbConnection.update("MY_FLOATS","INDEX",i,"VALUE",myNum);
    }
} catch (NumberFormatException ex) {
    return null;
} finally {
    dbConnection.release();  // Always release DB connection, even if transaction fails.
}

因为如果出现错误,您只希望释放一次数据库连接(或选择您最喜欢的其他资源类型……)。

把它放在里面。您可以继续处理(如果您愿意),也可以抛出一个有用的异常,告诉客户端myString的值和包含坏值的数组的索引。我认为NumberFormatException已经告诉您坏的值,但原则是将所有有用的数据放在您抛出的异常中。考虑一下在程序的调试器中,您会对什么感兴趣。

考虑:

try {
   // parse
} catch (NumberFormatException nfe){
   throw new RuntimeException("Could not parse as a Float: [" + myString + 
                              "] found at index: " + i, nfe);
} 

在需要的时候,您将非常感谢这样一个异常,其中包含尽可能多的信息。

My perspective would be try/catch blocks are necessary to insure proper exception handling, but creating such blocks has performance implications. Since, Loops contain intensive repetitive computations, it is not recommended to put try/catch blocks inside loops. Additionally, it seems where this condition occurs, it is often "Exception" or "RuntimeException" which is caught. RuntimeException being caught in code should be avoided. Again, if if you work in a big company it's essential to log that exception properly, or stop runtime exception to happen. Whole point of this description is PLEASE AVOID USING TRY-CATCH BLOCKS IN LOOPS

虽然性能可能是相同的,“看起来”更好的是非常主观的,但在功能上仍然有相当大的差异。举个例子:

Integer j = 0;
    try {
        while (true) {
            ++j;

            if (j == 20) { throw new Exception(); }
            if (j%4 == 0) { System.out.println(j); }
            if (j == 40) { break; }
        }
    } catch (Exception e) {
        System.out.println("in catch block");
    }

while循环位于try catch块内,变量'j'将递增到40,当j mod 4为零时输出,当j达到20时抛出异常。

在详细介绍之前,先来看另一个例子:

Integer i = 0;
    while (true) {
        try {
            ++i;

            if (i == 20) { throw new Exception(); }
            if (i%4 == 0) { System.out.println(i); }
            if (i == 40) { break; }

        } catch (Exception e) { System.out.println("in catch block"); }
    }

与上面的逻辑相同,唯一不同的是try/catch块现在在while循环中。

下面是输出(在try/catch中):

4
8
12 
16
in catch block

而另一个输出(try/catch in while):

4
8
12
16
in catch block
24
28
32
36
40

这里有很大的不同:

While in try/catch跳出循环

Try /catch in while保持循环活动

我想添加我自己的0.02c,关于在哪里放置异常处理的一般问题时两个相互竞争的考虑因素:

The "wider" the responsibility of the try-catch block (i.e. outside the loop in your case) means that when changing the code at some later point, you may mistakenly add a line which is handled by your existing catch block; possibly unintentionally. In your case, this is less likely because you are explicitly catching a NumberFormatException The "narrower" the responsibility of the try-catch block, the more difficult refactoring becomes. Particularly when (as in your case) you are executing a "non-local" instruction from within the catch block (the return null statement).