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 800197
In Process

The Archive Base Latest Questions

Editorial Team
  • 0
Editorial Team
Asked: May 14, 20262026-05-14T23:15:19+00:00 2026-05-14T23:15:19+00:00

.Net framework contains a great class named Convert that allows conversion between simple types,

  • 0

.Net framework contains a great class named Convert that allows conversion between simple types, DateTime type and String type. Also the class support conversion of the types implementing IConvertible interface.

The class has been implemented in the very first version of .Net framework. There were a few things in the first .Net framework that were not done quite right. For example .Parse methods on simple types would throw an exception if the string couldn’t be parsed and there would be no way to check if exception is going to be thrown in advance.

A future version of .Net Framework removed this deficiency by introducing the TryParse method that resolved this problem.

The Convert class dates back to time of the old Parse method, so the ChangeType method on this class in implemented old style – if conversion can’t be performed an exception is thrown.

Take a look at the following code:

public static T ConvertString<T>(string s, T @default)
{
    try
    {
        return (T)Convert.ChangeType(s, typeof(T), CultureInfo.InvariantCulture);
    }
    catch (Exception)
    {
        return @default;
    }            
}

This code basically does what I want. However I would pretty much like to avoid the ugly try/catch here. I’m sure, that similar to TryParse, there is a modern method of rewriting this code without the catch-all. Could you suggest one?

  • 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
    2026-05-14T23:15:20+00:00Added an answer on May 14, 2026 at 11:15 pm

    There is no such method, and there never will be.

    Convert.Change calls the IConvertible implementation of the object that you pass it to perform the conversion.

    Since the IConvertible interface does not define TryConvertTo methods, it is not possible to write a TryConvertTo method. (Adding new methods to IConvertible would be a major breaking change)

    It would be possible for Microsoft to create a ISafeConvertible interface with additional methods, but I don’t think they will.

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

Sidebar

Related Questions

.NET framework 3.5 introduces Action and Func<> predefined delegate types that are very handy.
Microsoft .NET Framework Assembly A Assembly B Contains Class C - References Assembly A
I have a web solution that contains 5 class libraries and one asp.net web
The .NET Framework contains since version 3.0 the ObservableCollection<T> , but why isn´t there
The regular .Net framework contains HttpUtility.UrlEncode in the System.Web Assembly and in Silverlight it
I have the following LINQ query: List<string> Types = (List<string>)Directory.GetFiles(@C:\WINDOWS\Microsoft.NET\Framework\v2.0.50727) .Where(x => System.IO.Path.GetFileNameWithoutExtension(x).Contains(Microsoft)) .ToList<string>();
My application uses asp.net 4, C# and Entity Framework. My database contains a table
The .net framework 4 is apparently going to include a BigInteger class. However, I
I have a simple ASP.NET dropdownlist control in a visual studio project (.NET framework
Is there an alternative to using .Contains() to select objects in Entity Framework that

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.