Once that happens, code will resume execution at the "catch". If there is a breakpoint within a function that's evaluated as part of a "when", that breakpoint will suspend execution before any stack unwinding occurs; by contrast, a breakpoint at a "catch" will only suspend execution after all finally handlers have run.
22 If there is a hierarchy of exceptions you can use the base class to catch all subclasses of exceptions. In the degenerate case you can catch all Java exceptions with:
Finally and catch blocks are quite different: Within the catch block you can respond to the thrown exception. This block is executed only if there is an unhandled exception and the type matches the one or is subclass of the one specified in the catch block's parameter. Finally will be always executed after try and catch blocks whether there is an exception raised or not.
If you re-throw an exception within the catch block, and that exception is caught inside of another catch block, everything executes according to the documentation.
In the second scheme, if the promise p rejects, then the .catch() handler is called. If you return a normal value or a promise that eventually resolves from the .catch() handler (thus "handling" the error), then the promise chain switches to the resolved state and the .then() handler after the .catch() will be called. So that's difference #2.
catch (Exception e, ExtendsRuntimeException re) { // common logic to handle both exceptions } Is it possible to avoid duplicating the handler code in each catch block?
Catch will only run if an exception is thrown and the catch block can handle that type of exception. The finally block is the one that will run when the try block is complete.
19 Cleaner code using async/await with Promise catch handler. From what I see, this has been a long-standing problem that has bugged (both meanings) many programmers and their code. The Promise .catch is really no different from try/catch. ES6 Promise's catch handler and work harmoniously with "await/async", providing a proper solution and ...
I recently came across code written by a fellow programmer in which he had a try-catch statement inside a catch! Please forgive my inability to paste the actual code, but what he did was something
