Sign Up to our social questions and Answers Engine to ask questions, answer people’s questions, and connect with other people.
Login to our social questions & Answers Engine to ask questions answer people’s questions & connect with other people.
Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link and will create a new password via email.
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.
Is there any performance problem or something else about letting the exception to propagate, or it is better to write it like this
try
{
}
catch
{
throw;
}
If you’re not going to handle the exception it’s better to have nothing rather than what you propose. All that does is add the overhead of catching and then rethrowing the same exception.
If you can handle the exception do so, but then don’t propagate it further up the call stack.