0

let's say, i have 50 lines of javascript statements in a block. is there a way that the script continues to run if any one of the lines got an error, without using a lot of try catch blocks for each of the line?

konghou
  • 557
  • 7
  • 20
  • 1
    you have to use global error handing like , read this question http://stackoverflow.com/questions/951791/javascript-global-error-handling – dev.meghraj Apr 12 '13 at 06:57
  • 1
    @karaxuna Sometimes you expect errors to occur. – Moritz Roessler Apr 12 '13 at 08:45
  • @C5H8NNaO4 In very rare cases, he can use try, but i believe that everything can be considered on client side javascript. I don't know, maybe i'm wrong... – karaxuna Apr 12 '13 at 08:57

2 Answers2

1

Try this:

   1:  <head>
   2:  <script language="javascript">
   3:  function stoperror()
   4:  {
   5:  return true
   6:  }
   7:  window.onerror=stoperror();
   8:  </script>
   9:  </head>
Fabiotocchi
  • 226
  • 3
  • 11
  • 2
    doesn't work.. the script halts. by the way https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/DOM/window.onerror says "Note that some/many error events do not trigger window.onerror, you have to listen for them specifically."... what exactly are those errors? – konghou Apr 12 '13 at 07:34
  • Try catch seems the only way then... http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2978291/on-error-resume-next-in-javascript – Fabiotocchi Apr 12 '13 at 07:46
1

Your question is a bit questionable. If you have 50 statements in a block which you allow to fail independently I conclude than that there is no relation between those statements. In this example 

var a = 1;
var b = a + 2;

the b variable relies on the outcome of a. If thats not the case, I assume, the only reason that those statements are placed in one block is that they must be executed at the same time. In that case, I also assume that those statements are more expressions like functions with side-effects, like C#-void functions or Actions. You don't really care about the outcome of the expressions..

You need to put each expression in a try-[catch | finally] block, I have no other option. To make it less verbose you can do something like below:

var tryF = function() {

    // convert arguments to normal array
    var args = [].slice.call(arguments, 0, arguments.length);

    // if has function to execute
    if(args.length > 0)
    {
      var func = args[0];//alert(func);
        try {func();}
        finally {

            // if has next function to execute
            if(args.length>1) {
             tryF.apply(null, args.slice(1, args.length));
            }
        }
    }
}
// usage
{
    // first function has a error, it won't block the next 
    tryF(function() { aslert(1); }, function() { alert(1); });
}
Andries
  • 1,547
  • 10
  • 29
  • in my case i have a lot of operations to deal with complex objects such as: var a = b.c.d .... here properties b,c,d maybe undefined but that's alright with my operations. however i need to either perform a lot of checking on each of those objects (say if(b!=undefined && b.c!=undefined...) and so on) or put the statement in a try { var a = b.c.d... } block which is too clumsy. – konghou Apr 12 '13 at 09:38