为了避免所有我可以在谷歌上搜索到的标准答案，我将提供一个你们都可以随意攻击的例子。
c#和Java(以及其他很多语言)有很多类型，有些“溢出”行为我一点也不喜欢(例如type。MaxValue +类型。SmallestValue ==类型。MinValue，例如int。MaxValue + 1 = int.MinValue)。
但是，鉴于我的邪恶本性，我将通过将此行为扩展为重写DateTime类型来对这种伤害进行侮辱。(我知道DateTime在. net中是密封的，但为了这个例子，我使用了一种与c#完全相似的伪语言，除了DateTime没有密封之外)。
被覆盖的Add方法:
/// <summary>
/// Increments this date with a timespan, but loops when
/// the maximum value for datetime is exceeded.
/// </summary>
/// <param name="ts">The timespan to (try to) add</param>
/// <returns>The Date, incremented with the given timespan.
/// If DateTime.MaxValue is exceeded, the sum wil 'overflow' and
/// continue from DateTime.MinValue.
/// </returns>
public DateTime override Add(TimeSpan ts)
{
try
{
return base.Add(ts);
}
catch (ArgumentOutOfRangeException nb)
{
// calculate how much the MaxValue is exceeded
// regular program flow
TimeSpan saldo = ts - (base.MaxValue - this);
return DateTime.MinValue.Add(saldo)
}
catch(Exception anyOther)
{
// 'real' exception handling.
}
}
当然，如果可以很容易地解决这个问题，但事实仍然是，我不明白为什么不能使用异常(从逻辑上讲，我可以看到，当性能是一个问题时，在某些情况下应该避免异常)。
我认为在许多情况下，它们比if结构更清晰，并且不会破坏方法所做的任何契约。
恕我直言，“永远不要在常规程序流程中使用它们”的反应似乎并不是每个人都有，因为这种反应的力量可以证明。
还是我说错了?
我读过其他的帖子，处理各种特殊情况，但我的观点是，如果你们都是:
清晰的
尊重你的方法
拍我。
我不认为使用异常来进行流控制有什么错。异常有点类似于延续，在静态类型语言中，异常比延续更强大，所以，如果你需要延续，但你的语言没有它们，你可以使用异常来实现它们。
好吧，实际上，如果你需要延续，而你的语言没有，你选择了错误的语言，你应该使用另一种语言。但有时你别无选择:客户端web编程就是最好的例子——没有办法绕过JavaScript。
An example: Microsoft Volta is a project to allow writing web applications in straight-forward .NET, and let the framework take care of figuring out which bits need to run where. One consequence of this is that Volta needs to be able to compile CIL to JavaScript, so that you can run code on the client. However, there is a problem: .NET has multithreading, JavaScript doesn't. So, Volta implements continuations in JavaScript using JavaScript Exceptions, then implements .NET Threads using those continuations. That way, Volta applications that use threads can be compiled to run in an unmodified browser – no Silverlight needed.
我的经验法则是:
如果您可以做任何事情来从错误中恢复，捕获异常
如果这个错误是很常见的(例如。用户尝试使用错误的密码登录)，使用returnvalues
如果您不能做任何事情来从错误中恢复，那么就让它不被捕获(或者在主捕获器中捕获它，以半优雅地关闭应用程序)
我认为异常的问题纯粹是从语法的角度来看的(我非常确定性能开销是最小的)。我不喜欢到处都是尝试块。
举个例子:
try
{
DoSomeMethod(); //Can throw Exception1
DoSomeOtherMethod(); //Can throw Exception1 and Exception2
}
catch(Exception1)
{
//Okay something messed up, but is it SomeMethod or SomeOtherMethod?
}
. .另一个例子是，当你需要使用工厂将一些东西赋值给一个句柄时，该工厂可能会抛出异常:
Class1 myInstance;
try
{
myInstance = Class1Factory.Build();
}
catch(SomeException)
{
// Couldn't instantiate class, do something else..
}
myInstance.BestMethodEver(); // Will throw a compile-time error, saying that myInstance is uninitalized, which it potentially is.. :(
就我个人而言，我认为你应该为罕见的错误条件(内存不足等)保留异常，而使用returnvalues(值类，结构或枚举)来进行错误检查。
希望我正确理解了你的问题:)
有一些通用的机制，语言可以允许一个方法退出而不返回值，并unwind到下一个“catch”块:
Have the method examine the stack frame to determine the call site, and use the metadata for the call site to find either information about a try block within the calling method, or the location where the calling method stored the address of its caller; in the latter situation, examine metadata for the caller's caller to determine in the same fashion as the immediate caller, repeating until one finds a try block or the stack is empty. This approach adds very little overhead to the no-exception case (it does preclude some optimizations) but is expensive when an exception occurs.
Have the method return a "hidden" flag which distinguishes a normal return from an exception, and have the caller check that flag and branch to an "exception" routine if it's set. This routine adds 1-2 instructions to the no-exception case, but relatively little overhead when an exception occurs.
Have the caller place exception-handling information or code at a fixed address relative to the stacked return address. For example, with the ARM, instead of using the instruction "BL subroutine", one could use the sequence:
adr lr,next_instr
b subroutine
b handle_exception
next_instr:
要正常退出，子例程只需执行bx lr或pop {pc};在异常退出的情况下，子例程将在执行返回之前从LR中减去4，或者使用sub LR，#4,pc(取决于ARM的变化，执行模式等)。如果调用者没有被设计为适应它，这种方法将会非常严重地故障。
A language or framework which uses checked exceptions might benefit from having those handled with a mechanism like #2 or #3 above, while unchecked exceptions are handled using #1. Although the implementation of checked exceptions in Java is rather nuisancesome, they would not be a bad concept if there were a means by which a call site could say, essentially, "This method is declared as throwing XX, but I don't expect it ever to do so; if it does, rethrow as an "unchecked" exception. In a framework where checked exceptions were handled in such fashion, they could be an effective means of flow control for things like parsing methods which in some contexts may have a high likelihood of failure, but where failure should return fundamentally different information than success. I'm unaware of any frameworks that use such a pattern, however. Instead, the more common pattern is to use the first approach above (minimal cost for the no-exception case, but high cost when exceptions are thrown) for all exceptions.
