Question

Normally, I’d do this:

try
{
    code

    code that might throw an anticipated exception you want to handle

    code

    code that might throw an anticipated exception you want to handle

    code
}
catch 
{

}

Are there any benefits to doing it this way?

code

try
{
    code that might throw an anticipated exception you want to handle
}
catch
{
}

code

try
{
    code that might throw an anticipated exception you want to handle
}
catch
{
}

code

Update:

I originally asked this question w/reference to C#, but as A. Levy commented, it could apply to any exception handling language, so I made the tags reflect that.

Answer 1

It depends. If you want to provide special handling for specific errors then use multiple catch blocks:

try
{ 
    // code that throws an exception
    // this line won't execute
}
catch (StackOverflowException ex)
{
    // special handling for StackOverflowException 
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
   // all others
}

If, however, the intent is to handle an exception and continue executing, place the code in separate try-catch blocks:

try
{ 
    // code that throws an exception

}
catch (Exception ex)
{
   // handle
}

try
{ 
    // this code will execute unless the previous catch block 
    // throws an exception (re-throw or new exception) 
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
   // handle
}