Throwing exception vs checking null, for a null argument
Posted
by dotnetdev
on Stack Overflow
See other posts from Stack Overflow
or by dotnetdev
Published on 2010-03-26T21:53:46Z
Indexed on
2010/03/26
22:03 UTC
Read the original article
Hit count: 601
What factors dictate throwing an exception if argument is null (eg if (a is null) throw new ArgumentNullException() ), as opposed to checking the argument if it is null beforehand.
I don't see why the exception should be thrown rather than checking for null in the first place? What benefit is there in the throw exception approach?
This is for C#/.NET
Thanks
© Stack Overflow or respective owner
