On Thu, 01 Apr 2004 06:07:58 GMT (01/Apr/04 04:07:58 PM)
, Karl Bochert <kbochert@copper.net> wrote:

> On Wed, 31 Mar 2004 21:48:20 -0800, Andy Friesen <andy@ikagames.com> wrote:
>> Karl Bochert wrote:
>> >>
>> >>   try { <some statement(s) }
>> >>   catch (<errorclass>) { <do something about it> }
>> >>   finally { <always run> };
>> >>
>> >
>> > How does that differ from:
>> >
>> >     try { <some statement(s) }
>> >     catch (<errorclass>) { <do something about it> }
>> >     <always run>};
>>
>> Even if an exception is thrown, and isn't caught in this scope, the
>> finally block will execute while the stack is being unwound.
>>
>> ie
>>
>> try {
>>     throw new Exception("This won't be caught here.");
>> } catch (IOError error) {
>>     we can't catch Exception() here, only IOError
>> } finally {
>>     // clean up the file, whether or not an error occurred
>>     myFile.close();
>> }
>>
>>   -- andy
> Makes sense   -- sort of interleaved exceptions
> Not for me, I think

How come, Karl?

I can see that I might need to close a file regardless of what type of error happened, and that I might also want to do some special stuff for specific types of errors.

That's what the 'finally' phrase allows for.

-- 
Derek