Consider:

void fun() {
   try {
      throw new Exception("a");
   } finally {
      throw new Exception("b");
   }
}

Currently this function would unceremoniously terminate the program. I think it shouldn't. What should happen is that the "a" exception should be propagated unabated, and the "b" exception should be appended to it. The Exception class should have a property "next" that returns a reference to the next exception thrown (in this case "b"), effectively establishing an arbitrarily long singly-linked list of exceptions.

A friend told me that that's what Java does, with the difference that the last exception thrown takes over, so the chain comes reversed. I strongly believe "a" is the main exception and "b" is a contingent exception, so we shouldn't do what Java does. But Java must have some good reason to go the other way.

Please chime in with (a) a confirmation/infirmation of Java's mechanism above; (b) links to motivations for Java's approach, (c) any comments about all of the above.


Thanks,

Andrei

Andrei Alexandrescu Wrote:

> Consider:
> 
> void fun() {
>     try {
>        throw new Exception("a");
>     } finally {
>        throw new Exception("b");
>     }
> }
> 
> Currently this function would unceremoniously terminate the program. I think it shouldn't.

Have you tried it?  I think the call to terminate() is commented out.  It was like this before I ever started mucking with the runtime many moons ago.  What I think currently happens is that the exception in the finally clause will replace the one being thrown.  That or it's discarded, I really can't remember which.  Either way, the current behavior is a bit weird.

> What should happen is that the "a" exception should be propagated unabated, and the "b" exception should be appended to it. The Exception class should have a property "next" that returns a reference to the next exception thrown (in this case "b"), effectively establishing an arbitrarily long singly-linked list of exceptions.

The Exception class already has a "next" property, but I've always seen this as a way to nest exceptions.  For example:

try
{
    throw new Exception;
}
catch( Exception e )
{
    throw new MyException( e );
}

So a network API might throw a NetworkException that references a SocketException with more detailed info about the exact problem, etc.  The reason I'm unsure about chaining related exceptions as opposed to use chaining as a means of repackaging exceptions is that the catch handler that ultimately executes will be the one that matches the first exception in the chain, not the first that matches any exception in the chain.  I haven't thought about this too carefully, but it seems like it might be difficult to write correct code with this model.

> A friend told me that that's what Java does, with the difference that the last exception thrown takes over, so the chain comes reversed. I strongly believe "a" is the main exception and "b" is a contingent exception, so we shouldn't do what Java does. But Java must have some good reason to go the other way.

When a dozen holes appear in a dike, I'm not sure it matters which one you try to plug first :-)  Unless there's some way to start with the biggest one, I suppose.  Seems like with the suggested model, the correct approach may be to always catch Exception and walk the whole chain to figure out what to do.  But that sounds awfully close to C-style error handling.

Sean Kelly wrote:
> Andrei Alexandrescu Wrote:
> 
>> Consider:
>> 
>> void fun() { try { throw new Exception("a"); } finally { throw new
>> Exception("b"); } }
>> 
>> Currently this function would unceremoniously terminate the
>> program. I think it shouldn't.
> 
> Have you tried it?  I think the call to terminate() is commented out.
> It was like this before I ever started mucking with the runtime many
> moons ago.  What I think currently happens is that the exception in
> the finally clause will replace the one being thrown.  That or it's
> discarded, I really can't remember which.  Either way, the current
> behavior is a bit weird.

Guilty as charged. Haven't tried. I don't have D installed at work, but
I tried a Java example and indeed it looks like the last exception
thrown just takes over.

class Test {
    public static void main(String[] args) {
        System.out.println("Hello World!");
        try {
            (new Test()).fun();
        } catch (Exception e) {
            System.out.print(e);
            System.out.print(e.getCause());
            System.out.print("\n");
            e.printStackTrace();
        }
    }

    void fun() throws Exception {
        try {
            throw new Exception("a");
        } finally {
            throw new Exception("b");
        }
    }
}

Even more interestingly, calling printStackTrace() does not acknowledge
the originating exception. Calling getCause() returns null. So
essentially at the catch point I'm not sure there's a way to get to the
"a" exception.

>> What should happen is that the "a" exception should be propagated
>> unabated, and the "b" exception should be appended to it. The
>> Exception class should have a property "next" that returns a reference to the next exception thrown (in this case "b"),
>> effectively establishing an arbitrarily long singly-linked list of
>> exceptions.
> 
> The Exception class already has a "next" property, but I've always
> seen this as a way to nest exceptions.  For example:
> 
> try { throw new Exception; } catch( Exception e ) { throw new
> MyException( e ); }
> 
> So a network API might throw a NetworkException that references a
> SocketException with more detailed info about the exact problem, etc.
> The reason I'm unsure about chaining related exceptions as opposed to
> use chaining as a means of repackaging exceptions is that the catch
> handler that ultimately executes will be the one that matches the
> first exception in the chain, not the first that matches any
> exception in the chain.  I haven't thought about this too carefully,
> but it seems like it might be difficult to write correct code with
> this model.
> 
>> A friend told me that that's what Java does, with the difference
>> that the last exception thrown takes over, so the chain comes
>> reversed. I strongly believe "a" is the main exception and "b" is a
>> contingent exception, so we shouldn't do what Java does. But Java
>> must have some good reason to go the other way.
> 
> When a dozen holes appear in a dike, I'm not sure it matters which
> one you try to plug first :-)  Unless there's some way to start with
> the biggest one, I suppose.  Seems like with the suggested model, the
> correct approach may be to always catch Exception and walk the whole
> chain to figure out what to do.  But that sounds awfully close to
> C-style error handling.

Well I'm not sure about the metaphor. What I can tell from my code is that exceptions are often contingent one upon another (not parallel and independent). A typical example: writing to a file fails, but then closing it also fails and possibly attempting to remove the partial file off disk also fails. In that case, the important message is that the file couldn't be written to; the rest is aftermath. If the doctor says "You have a liver problem, which causes your nails to have a distinctive shape" you don't mind the nails as much as the liver.

There's also the opposite flow, for example an exception in some validation prevents a database update. But I don't think code regularly does essential work in destructors, finally blocks, and scope statements. The essential work is done on the straight path, and the important error is happening on the straight path. In fact, what I just wrote tilted me a bit more in favor of the "master exception + contingent camarilla" model. That model also suggests that most of the time you only need to look at the top exception thrown to figure out the root of the problem; talking to the camarilla is optional.


Andrei

Andrei Alexandrescu Wrote:

> Sean Kelly wrote:
> > 
> > When a dozen holes appear in a dike, I'm not sure it matters which one you try to plug first :-)  Unless there's some way to start with the biggest one, I suppose.  Seems like with the suggested model, the correct approach may be to always catch Exception and walk the whole chain to figure out what to do.  But that sounds awfully close to C-style error handling.
> 
> Well I'm not sure about the metaphor. What I can tell from my code is that exceptions are often contingent one upon another (not parallel and independent). A typical example: writing to a file fails, but then closing it also fails and possibly attempting to remove the partial file off disk also fails. In that case, the important message is that the file couldn't be written to; the rest is aftermath. If the doctor says "You have a liver problem, which causes your nails to have a distinctive shape" you don't mind the nails as much as the liver.

Upon reflection, I'm inclined to agree.  This is pretty much a nonexistent case for me anyway (my experience with C++ has me following the "no exceptions from dtors ever" mantra for the most part), so it's difficult to come up with counterexamples.  I also like that your chaining method represents a timeline of what happened, with the most likely cause of the whole mess at the head of the list.

> There's also the opposite flow, for example an exception in some validation prevents a database update. But I don't think code regularly does essential work in destructors, finally blocks, and scope statements. The essential work is done on the straight path, and the important error is happening on the straight path.

Yeah, I think you're right.

On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 15:24:11 -0800, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:

> Consider:
> 
> void fun() {
>     try {
>        throw new Exception("a");
>     } finally {
>        throw new Exception("b");
>     }
> }
> 
> Currently this function would unceremoniously terminate the program. I think it shouldn't. What should happen is that the "a" exception should be propagated unabated, and the "b" exception should be appended to it. The Exception class should have a property "next" that returns a reference to the next exception thrown (in this case "b"), effectively establishing an arbitrarily long singly-linked list of exceptions.
> 
> A friend told me that that's what Java does, with the difference that the last exception thrown takes over, so the chain comes reversed. I strongly believe "a" is the main exception and "b" is a contingent exception, so we shouldn't do what Java does. But Java must have some good reason to go the other way.
> 
> Please chime in with (a) a confirmation/infirmation of Java's mechanism
> above; (b) links to motivations for Java's approach, (c) any comments
> about all of the above.
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Andrei

Best as I can tell, the Java compiler doesn't do the chaining automatically. It is up to the one throwing the exception to make the chain. The exception class just provides a specification that requires all exceptions to support chaining. This explains why it is not the root cause that is at the head of the chain.

try {
     stmt.executeUpdate(sql);
} catch (SQLException ex) {
   throw new
   EmployeeLookupException(
   "Query failure",ex); // ex is passed to the constructor of the class
}

Example from: http://java.sys-con.com/node/36579

http://www.developer.com/tech/article.php/1431531/Chained-Exceptions-in- Java.htm

Jesse Phillips wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 15:24:11 -0800, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> 
>> Consider:
>>
>> void fun() {
>>     try {
>>        throw new Exception("a");
>>     } finally {
>>        throw new Exception("b");
>>     }
>> }
>>
>> Currently this function would unceremoniously terminate the program. I
>> think it shouldn't. What should happen is that the "a" exception should
>> be propagated unabated, and the "b" exception should be appended to it.
>> The Exception class should have a property "next" that returns a
>> reference to the next exception thrown (in this case "b"), effectively
>> establishing an arbitrarily long singly-linked list of exceptions.
>>
>> A friend told me that that's what Java does, with the difference that
>> the last exception thrown takes over, so the chain comes reversed. I
>> strongly believe "a" is the main exception and "b" is a contingent
>> exception, so we shouldn't do what Java does. But Java must have some
>> good reason to go the other way.
>>
>> Please chime in with (a) a confirmation/infirmation of Java's mechanism
>> above; (b) links to motivations for Java's approach, (c) any comments
>> about all of the above.
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Andrei
> 
> Best as I can tell, the Java compiler doesn't do the chaining automatically. It is up to the one throwing the exception to make the chain. The exception class just provides a specification that requires all exceptions to support chaining. This explains why it is not the root cause that is at the head of the chain.
> 
> try {
>      stmt.executeUpdate(sql);
> } catch (SQLException ex) {
>    throw new
>    EmployeeLookupException(
>    "Query failure",ex); // ex is passed to the constructor of the class
> } 
> 
> Example from: http://java.sys-con.com/node/36579
> 
> http://www.developer.com/tech/article.php/1431531/Chained-Exceptions-in-
> Java.htm

Thanks! Question - is there a way to fetch the current Throwable from within a finally clause?

Andrei

Andrei Alexandrescu Wrote:
> 
> Thanks! Question - is there a way to fetch the current Throwable from within a finally clause?

FWIW, I've been thinking about adding this feature for ages.  I think there's even a comment to the effect in core.thread somewhere.  In short, I think we'd need a thread-local field for storing the current exception.

On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 18:27:47 -0800, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:

> Thanks! Question - is there a way to fetch the current Throwable from within a finally clause?
> 
> Andrei

I'm pretty sure you can't since finally isn't passed an exception. I also don't see anything in my quick search.

Hello Jesse,

> On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 18:27:47 -0800, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> 
>> Thanks! Question - is there a way to fetch the current Throwable from
>> within a finally clause?
>> 
>> Andrei
>> 
> I'm pretty sure you can't since finally isn't passed an exception. I
> also don't see anything in my quick search.
> 

That stands to reason because in some cases (when things go correctly) there isn't one.

BCS wrote:
> Hello Jesse,
> 
>> On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 18:27:47 -0800, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks! Question - is there a way to fetch the current Throwable from
>>> within a finally clause?
>>>
>>> Andrei
>>>
>> I'm pretty sure you can't since finally isn't passed an exception. I
>> also don't see anything in my quick search.
>>
> 
> That stands to reason because in some cases (when things go correctly) there isn't one.
> 
> 

One hopes.  Just the same: (hypothetical syntax incoming)

try {
	// ...
}
catch ( ExceptionA exa ) {
	// ...
}
catch ( ExceptionB exb ) {
	// ...
}
finally ( x ) {
	// ...
	if ( x ) throw new ExceptionC( x );
}

And obviously if finally has no () it doesn't bother with the feature.

-- Chris Nicholson-Sauls