convincing C# compiler that execution will stop after a member returns

Posted by Sarah Vessels on Stack Overflow See other posts from Stack Overflow or by Sarah Vessels
Published on 2010-03-24T20:23:38Z Indexed on 2010/03/24 20:33 UTC
Read the original article Hit count: 304

Filed under:
|
|
|
|

I don't think this is currently possible or if it's even a good idea, but it's something I was thinking about just now. I use MSTest for unit testing my C# project. In one of my tests, I do the following:

MyClass instance;

try
{
    instance = getValue();
}
catch (MyException ex)
{
    Assert.Fail("Caught MyException");
}

instance.doStuff(); // Use of unassigned local variable 'instance'

To make this code compile, I have to assign a value to instance either at its declaration or in the catch block. However, Assert.Fail will never, to the best of my knowledge, allow execution to proceed past it, hence instance will never be used without a value. Why is it then that I must assign a value to it? If I change the Assert.Fail to something like throw ex, the code compiles fine, I assume because it knows that exception will disallow execution to proceed to a point where instance would be used uninitialized.

So is it a case of runtime versus compile-time knowledge about where execution will be allowed to proceed? Would it ever be reasonable for C# to have some way of saying that a member, in this case Assert.Fail, will never allow execution after it returns? Maybe that could be in the form of a method attribute. Would this be useful or an unnecessary complexity for the compiler?

© Stack Overflow or respective owner

Related posts about c#

Related posts about compiler