Sign Up

Sign Up to our social questions and Answers Engine to ask questions, answer people’s questions, and connect with other people.

Have an account? Sign In

Have an account? Sign In Now

Sign In

Login to our social questions & Answers Engine to ask questions answer people’s questions & connect with other people.

Sign Up Here

Forgot Password?

Don't have account, Sign Up Here

Forgot Password

Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link and will create a new password via email.

Have an account? Sign In Now

You must login to ask a question.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

Please briefly explain why you feel this question should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this answer should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this user should be reported.

Sign InSign Up

The Archive Base

The Archive Base Logo The Archive Base Logo

The Archive Base Navigation

  • SEARCH
  • Home
  • About Us
  • Blog
  • Contact Us
Search
Ask A Question

Mobile menu

Close
Ask a Question
  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Feed
  • User Profile
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Buy Points
  • Users
  • Help
  • Buy Theme
  • SEARCH
Home/ Questions/Q 8118635
In Process

The Archive Base Latest Questions

Editorial Team
  • 0
Editorial Team
Asked: June 6, 20262026-06-06T04:33:01+00:00 2026-06-06T04:33:01+00:00

All, this is a simple one. Is there a way of testing the returned

  • 0

All, this is a simple one. Is there a way of testing the returned value within a finally block without doing

bool result = false;
try
{
    if (someCondition)
    {
        result = true;
        return result;
    }
    return result;
}
finally
{
    if (result)
     // Do something mind-blowing.
}

Do I have to use the variable result of is there a cleaner way?

Note: I am aware that this is not a lot of work to do what i am doing now. I am curious for intricacies of the .NET world.

  • 1 1 Answer
  • 0 Views
  • 0 Followers
  • 0
Share
  • Facebook
  • Report

Leave an answer
Cancel reply

You must login to add an answer.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

1 Answer

  • Voted
  • Oldest
  • Recent
  • Random
  1. Editorial Team
    Editorial Team
    2026-06-06T04:33:03+00:00Added an answer on June 6, 2026 at 4:33 am

    The short answer is: No. That is not possible. I’m thinking that you are mostly interested in a good readability for your code.

    Sometimes you actually need a reference to other variables in the finally block, even when your function is returning something.
    For example if you’re using some IDisposable implementations and you do not want or cannot (in order to preserve readability) use using blocks, then you need to Dispose() them in the finally block.

    So, having the extra declaration is not a big deal, especially if it’s only one. The code is still readable.

    For multiple and nested try/catch statements, a good design decision would be to put each try/catch block with all logic related to it in a separate function which returns true/false or a result that is useful in the caller’s context.

    • 0
    • Reply
    • Share
      Share
      • Share on Facebook
      • Share on Twitter
      • Share on LinkedIn
      • Share on WhatsApp
      • Report

Sidebar

Related Questions

I'm wondering if there is a built-in way to do this... Take this simple
After doing a simple merge (one without conflicts), git show usually only shows something
I have this simple code in my user_controller.rb file #listing all users def index
Can't seem to achieve this simple functionality! All I want is to clear a
In order to delete all .svn files/folders/subfolders in myfolder I use this simple line
I have a simple, always-consecutive-ordered list like this: all = [ 1, 2, 3,
This is probably pretty simple. I want to select all elements of a given
This might seem ridiculously simple, but I've been getting all kinds of error depending
I created a simple application inspired by this example in order to test all
Is there a simple way to convert a CTypeRef to a specific CoreFoundation type?

Explore

  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Users
  • Help
  • SEARCH

Footer

© 2021 The Archive Base. All Rights Reserved
With Love by The Archive Base

Insert/edit link

Enter the destination URL

Or link to existing content

    No search term specified. Showing recent items. Search or use up and down arrow keys to select an item.