Stephany Young wrote:

> In addition, like C# variable can have block scope with a Try section, a
> Catch section or a Finally section, which is why, in C#, 'blocking' is
> required.

"Jon Shemitz" <jon@midnightbeach.com> wrote in message
news:456935A8.7EA16CAC@midnightbeach.com...
> Stephany Young wrote:
>
>> In addition, like C# variable can have block scope with a Try section, a
>> Catch section or a Finally section, which is why, in C#, 'blocking' is
>> required.
>
> A rather strong statement, that should probably have been qualified
> with an "imho."
>
> After all, a try statement doesn't *have* to have block-local
> variables, and there wouldn't have been anything unusual in supporting
> simple statements for try blocks but requiring compound statements if
> you wanted block-local variables.
>
> Similarly, while a `catch` statement *can* have a block local
> exception variable, there wouldn't have been anything inconsistent
> with making that local to the `catch` statement, whether that was
> simple or compound. Look, for example, at `using` statements, `for`
> loops, and `foreach` loops, each of which can declare a
> statement-local variable (indeed, `foreach` loops *must* declare a
> statement-local variable) while still taking both simple and compound
> statements.
>
> Iow, try statements are a C# inconsistency that can't really be
> explained by invoking block locality.
>
> --
>
> .NET 2.0 for Delphi Programmers
> www.midnightbeach.com/.net
> What you need to know.

<reycri@gmail.com> wrote:
> While the following is allowed:
>
> if (a == b)
> SomeFunction();
> else
> OtherFunction();
>
> The following is not:
>
> try
> DoSomething();
> catch (Exception e)
> ProcessError(e);
>
> I checked the C# grammar and it confirms that, unlike all other
> compound statements, it requires a block - ie: the opening { and
> closing } are required.
> I just want to be able to write the following (to avoid too many
> indents):

> <reycri@gmail.com> wrote:
>> While the following is allowed:
>>
>> if (a == b)
>> SomeFunction();
>> else
>> OtherFunction();
>>
>> The following is not:
>>
>> try
>> DoSomething();
>> catch (Exception e)
>> ProcessError(e);
>>
>> I checked the C# grammar and it confirms that, unlike all other
>> compound statements, it requires a block - ie: the opening { and
>> closing } are required.
>> I just want to be able to write the following (to avoid too many
>> indents):
>
> If you've got too much indentation, that suggests you should consider
> refactoring. Taking out indentation will make your code harder to
> understand.
>
> Personally, I think it's more of a pity that your first example *does*
> compile than that the second one doesn't.
>
> --
> Jon Skeet - <skeet@pobox.com>
> http://www.pobox.com/~skeet Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/jon.skeet
> If replying to the group, please do not mail me too

<cpdaniel_remove_this_and_nospam@mvps.org.nospam> wrote:

>In addition, both the try block and the catch block by necessity constitute
>unique scopes - variables declared inside are not visible outside (nor would
>they be if a single statement were allowed). For that reason, it makes
>sense to require the braces to make it a formal block.

"Joe Mayo (C# MVP)" <JoeMayoCMVP@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:61EED912-6C33-426B-B3ED-498FF831CA45@microsoft.com...
> IMHO, I believe this is a combination of style and history. Style is
> subjective and I don't take a side one way or the other as to whether it
> is
> correct or not. However, one of the features of C# is that it is an
> evolution of the C and C++ family of languages. Since the C++ try block
> has
> curly braces, C# makes the migration path easier for the C++ programmer.
> You'll find that C# syntax is similar in many ways to C++.
>
> That said, I don't think there is a technical reason requiring that C# be
> designed that way because VB.NET try blocks don't have begin/end, which is
> an
> example of syntax that works without it.
>
> Joe
> --
> http://www.csharp-station.com
>
>
> "reycri@gmail.com" wrote:
>
>> While the following is allowed:
>>
>> if (a == b)
>> SomeFunction();
>> else
>> OtherFunction();
>>
>> The following is not:
>>
>> try
>> DoSomething();
>> catch (Exception e)
>> ProcessError(e);
>>
>> I checked the C# grammar and it confirms that, unlike all other
>> compound statements, it requires a block - ie: the opening { and
>> closing } are required.
>> I just want to be able to write the following (to avoid too many
>> indents):
>>
>> try
>> using (FileStream file = new FileStream("someFile.txt",
>> FileMode.OpenOrCreate))
>> using (SomeResource rsrc = new SomeResource())
>> {
>> // do stuff here
>> }
>> catch (Exception e)
>> {
>> // handle error here
>> }
>>
>>

reycri@gmail.com wrote:

> A "catch" must be associated with some "try". In my example, I want
> the second catch to be associated with the first try, as indicated
> by the indentation. But since multiple catch blocks are allowed for
> a try, the compiler would have to associate every catch with the
> nearest try.

"reycri@gmail.com" wrote:

> I found the answer to my own question here (from c#'s roots in c++):
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.c++.moderated/browse_thread/thread/a14a4ce80abd84c5/68a54d70f74b5093?lnk=st&q=try+catch+block+require+c%2B%2B&rnum=2&hl=en#68a54d70f74b5093
>
> To summarize:
> --------------------------------------------
> Suppose braces were not required:
> try
> try
> foo();
> catch(T t) { ... }
> catch(U u) { ... }
> ....
> A "catch" must be associated with some "try". In my example, I want
> the second catch to be associated with the first try, as indicated
> by the indentation. But since multiple catch blocks are allowed for
> a try, the compiler would have to associate every catch with the
> nearest try.
> --------------------------------------------
>
> The key here is that a try statement can have more than one catch
> clauses. In contrast, each if statement only has one else clause.
>