Skip to main content

finally and Return Values !!!

Let us read some code:-

int SomeMethod()
{
    int num = 1;

    try
    {
        num = 5;
        return num;
    }
    finally
    {
        num += 5;
    }
}

What is the return value of SomeMethod? Some anonymous guy asked that question in the code project forum, and it has been answered. I am writing about it here because it is interesting and subtle. One should not be surprised when people misinterpret finally. So let us take a guess, 10 (i = 5, then incremented by 5 in the finally block).

It is not the right answer; rather SomeMethod returns 5. Agreed that finally is called in all cases of returning from SomeMethod but the return value is calculated when it is time to return from SomeMethod, normally or abnormally. The subtlety lies not in the way finally is executed but in the return value is calculated. So the return value (5) is decided when a return is encountered in the try block. The finally is just called for cleanup; and the num modified there is local to SomeMethod. So make the return value 10, it is no use being hasty making SomeMethod return from the finally block. Because returning from finally is not allowed. (We will talk about it later why returning from catch block is a bad practice and why can't we return from finally block).

Had such modifications been done on a reference type, they would have been visible outside of SomeMethod, although the return value may be different. For instance,

class Num
{
    public int _num = 0;
};

int SomeMethod()
{
    Num num = new Num();

    try
    {
        num._num = 5;
        return num._num;
    }
    finally
    {
        num._num += 5;
    }
}

So in the above case, the return value is still 5, but the Num._num would have been incremented to 10 when SomeMethod returns. So reflecting shows that our code is transformed as follows by the compiler, where the CS$1$0000 is our return value.

private static int SomeMethod(Num num)
{
    int CS$1$0000;

    try
    {
        num._num = 5;
        CS$1$0000 = num._num;
    }
    finally
    {
        num._num += 5;
    }

    return CS$1$0000;
}

Given that we have clarified ourselves about finally, we should be writing the code as transformed by the compiler because returning from try and catch blocks is not a good practice.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

OrderedThreadPool - Task Execution In Queued Order !!!

I would not want to write chunks of code to spawns threads and perform many of my background tasks such as firing events, UI update etc. Instead I would use the System.Threading.ThreadPool class which serves this purpose. And a programmer who knows to use this class for such cases would also be aware that the tasks queued to the thread pool are NOT dispatched in the order they are queued. They get dispatched for execution in a haphazard fashion.In some situations, it is required that the tasks queued to the thread pool are dispatched (and executed) in the order they were queued. For instance, in my (and most?) applications, a series of events are fired to notify the clients with what is happening inside the (server) application. Although the events may be fired from any thread (asynchronous), I would want them or rather the client would be expecting that the events are received in a certain order, which aligns with the sequence of steps carried out inside the server application for th…

sizeof vs Marshal.SizeOf !!!

There are two facilities in C# to determine the size of a type - sizeof operator and Marshal.SizeOf method. Let me discuss what they offer and how they differ. Pardon me if I happen to ramble a bit. Before we settle the difference between sizeof and Marshal.SizeOf, let us discuss why would we want to compute the size of a variable or type. Other than academic, one typical reason to know the size of a type (in a production code) would be allocate memory for an array of items; typically done while using malloc. Unlike in C++ (or unmanaged world), computing the size of a type definitely has no such use in C# (managed world). Within the managed application, size does not matter; since there are types provided by the CLR for creating\managing fixed size and variable size (typed) arrays. And as per MSDN, the size cannot be computed accurately. Does that mean we don't need to compute the size of a type at all when working in the CLR world? Obviously no, else I would not be w…

Passing CComPtr By Value !!!

This is about a killer bug identified by our chief software engineer in our software. What was devised for ease of use and write smart code ended up in this killer defect due to improper perception. Ok, let us go!CComPtr is a template class in ATL designed to wrap the discrete functionality of COM object management - AddRef and Release. Technically it is a smart pointer for a COM object.void SomeMethod() { CComPtr siPtr; HRESULT hr = siPtr.CoCreateInstance(CLSID_SomeComponent); siPtr->MethodOne(20, L"Hello"); }Without CComPtr, the code wouldn't be as elegant as above. The code would be spilled with AddRef and Release. Besides, writing code to Release after use under any circumstance is either hard or ugly. CComPtr automatically takes care of releasing in its destructor just like std::auto_ptr. As a C++ programmer, we must be able to appreciate the inevitability of the destructor and its immense use in writing smart code. However there is a difference between …