I hoped that had died...

[Nagy Vilmos]

I once saw:

On Error Goto ErrorHandler
' 8,000 lines of really bad VB
ErrorHandler:
MsgBox err 'can't remember format
resume 'yup, goes back to the line what errored!

veni bibi saltavi

[Sinisa Hajnal]

I saw it and my first advice was to remove it. Then to improve the code :p Unfortunately, no, its not dead, there are still VB6 programmers - I'm currently working on a project that was written by VB6 turned VB.NET programmer and I'm still refactoring whenever I get the chance. I have DAL interface with all data access methods defined in there...and I don't have time to split it so I continue adding to it when changing existing code. It is at 300+ methods right now. With two concrete classes implementing it. X|

[Sander Rossel]

I know an old VB dinosaur who does it almost right...

Try
' Code... Mostly like:
Dim sCode As String = 123 ' Yes, this is possible with Option Strict Off (the default).
Dim Id As Integer ' From hungarian to PascalCase...
Dim someOtherVar As String ' And then correct camelCast, all in one method.
Catch (ex As Excpetion)
Log(Err.Message) ' Err, because why use ex?
End Try

I used to see this pre-.NET VB mixed with VB.NET a lot :rolleyes:

Read my (free) ebook Object-Oriented Programming in C# Succinctly. Visit my blog at Sander's bits - Writing the code you need. Or read my articles here on CodeProject.

Simplicity is prerequisite for reliability. — Edsger W. Dijkstra

Regards, Sander

[Kenneth Haugland]

Ah, you would love Rx then, there is something called Retry there :D Click and cry[^]

[OriginalGriff]

Retry actually makes sense: sometimes you have to wait for something to "wake up" so doing it three times before failing isn't a bad idea. Be a nice addon to C#:

retry (3)
{
MyOperation();
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
...
}

Or even just

try (3)
{
MyOperation();
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
...
}

Mind you, it'd also be nice to have try with a timespan timeout which caused a catch sometimes.

Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...

[Kenneth Haugland]

I think you can with Rx, but It will involve some nasty code. If you look in the link I posted you can retry infinitely many times:

public static void RetrySample<T>(IObservable<T> source)
{
source.Retry().Subscribe(t=>Console.WriteLine(t)); //Will always retry
Console.ReadKey();
}

So all you have to do is to enclose the subscription in an Observer, and set a timerinterval for desubscription by using an IObserver class.

[ZurdoDev]

OriginalGriff wrote:

Why isn't this abortion dead?

When you have a function that calls an external process and you don't care if it generates an error or not, then it works great. If it does generate an error it's an external process and nothing you can do about it and you still want the rest of your code to run.

There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.

[Richard Deeming]

There was a "question" back in April which was basically a rant about how C# sucked because it didn't have this "feature". The OP was insistent that his code was perfect, and he just wanted to ignore Microsoft's errors. :doh:

---

"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined." - Homer

[James McCullough]

The worst part of this is that I find a whole bunch of vendors that do this crap, too! I deal with Dynamics GP, where customizations can be written in VBA. I had a major error in one window where it kept dumping the user into VBA, bypassing all security. I contacted the vendor, and (sort of politely) requested they get their **** together. They sent me updated code... First line?

On error resume next

I lost it! They were confused why we changed vendors within a week after that...

[Gary Wheeler]

Richard Deeming wrote:

The OP was insistent that his code was perfect, and he just wanted to ignore Microsoft's errors.

You know, sometimes natural selection is just too damned slow.

Software Zen: delete this;

[Mark_Wallace]

I used it once, in a mini-prog that just creates empty, numbered ZIP or RAR files. The code was so simple that any potential "real" errors were dealt with without hardly having to think about them, so the only thing to worry about was if someone tried to create files with the same filenames as existing file (which I'd set to fail). It simply wasn't worth the effort of catching the error, so I just let it happen and Resumed Next.

I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!