Useless...

Spunky Coder

probably the coder wants the program to do nothing..:)

.....

BadKarma

This is to catch the possibility of that the function failed to return. The code in the catch should then be

protected void Foo()
{
  //...
  PreProcess(arg);
  //...
}


private void PreProcess(string arg)
{
  try
  {
    return;
  }
  catch(Exception ex)
  {
    // failed to return, run (fake restart) the program again
    main();
  }
}

codito ergo sum

CPallini

Spunky Coder wrote:

probably the coder wants the program to do nothing

probably the coder do nothing wants to program. :-D

If the Lord God Almighty had consulted me before embarking upon the Creation, I would have recommended something simpler. -- Alfonso the Wise, 13th Century King of Castile.
This is going on my arrogant assumptions. You may have a superb reason why I'm completely wrong. -- Iain Clarke

elektrowolf

Yeah there are many exceptions that can be thrown by the return instruction...

Dave Sexton

The function will ALWAYS return. The try{ return; } are the first 3 lines in the method & where the PreProcess() is called is already wrapped in a try..catch block.

But fortunately we have the nanny-state politicians who can step in to protect us poor stupid consumers, most of whom would not know a JVM from a frozen chicken. Bruce Pierson
Because programming is an art, not a science. Marc Clifton

StM0n

like it... try to return... if you fail, catch the exception and return... if you can... ;)

(yes|no|maybe)*

MarkB777

I cannot begin to imagine how the person who wrote this code thinks...

Mark Brock Click here to view my blog

Stephen Hewitt

Spunky Coder wrote:

probably the coder wants the program to do nothing..

Just because it does nothing doesn't mean nothing can go wrong! ;)

Steve

Pete OHanlon

MarkBrock wrote:

I cannot begin to imagine how the person who wrote this code thinks...

A couple of judicious edits and, voila: "I cannot imagine the person who wrote this code thinks."

Deja View - the feeling that you've seen this post before.

My blog | My articles

Saurabh Garg

Don't be so hard on the programmer. There might be couple of reasons for this. May be code skeleton was written to be filled later. Maybe there was function body was well but over time it was removed but function itself was not removed. -Saurabh

Dave Sexton

Saurabh.Garg wrote:

it was removed but function itself was not removed

Don't you think that's a little dangerous? At best it's careless & sloppy. I don't want careless, sloppy devs on my team - do you?

But fortunately we have the nanny-state politicians who can step in to protect us poor stupid consumers, most of whom would not know a JVM from a frozen chicken. Bruce Pierson
Because programming is an art, not a science. Marc Clifton

Saurabh Garg

I agree that it shows carelessness but how is it dangerous? Actually since I knew nothing about code base and its history I was giving benefit of doubt to the developer. -Saurabh

Dave Sexton

Saurabh.Garg wrote:

since I knew nothing about code base

Granted. Suffice it to say that this code forms part of a banking simulator. Dangerous in that it sets a precedent. This kind of sloppy code shouldn't be checked back into source control. Seriously, if the dev who wrote this was too lazy to clean this up there's a real danger that he'll take shortcuts in other places too. This in itself is already bad & poses a danger to our product as a whole. So yeah... In my book that's dangerous :)

But fortunately we have the nanny-state politicians who can step in to protect us poor stupid consumers, most of whom would not know a JVM from a frozen chicken. Bruce Pierson
Because programming is an art, not a science. Marc Clifton

Spacix One

least there isn't a performance hit. It could have been throwing exceptions :-D

protected void Foo()
{
//...
PreProcess(arg);
//...
}

private void PreProcess(string arg)
{
try
{
throw new Exception("Still being worked on..");
}
catch(Exception ex)
{
//....
}
return;
}

-Spacix All your skynet questions[^] belong to solved

Yasser Azeem

:-O