Develop Reference

bool? compare with bool vs GetValueOrDefault vs ?? operator

With numeric it is always same pretty:
if(a < 123) { ... } // disregards if `b` is `int?` or `int`
But with bool?:
bool? b = ...
if(b) { ... } // compiler error: can't convert bool? to bool.
There are following options:
if(b == false) { ... } // looks ugly, comparing bool? with bool
if(b.GetValueOrDefault()) { ... } // unclear when condition is true (one must know it's `false`)
if(b.GetValueOrDefault(true)) { ... } // required few seconds to understand inversion
I was curios whenever nullables (at least bool?) deserves this syntax to be used always:
if(b ?? false) { ... } // looks best to me
P.S.: this may looks like opinion-based question, but I didn't find similar to clear all my doubts alone... Perhaps some of those are best used in certain scenarios and I'd like to know in which ones.

The language designers had two choices, as far as allowing bool? to participate in control expressions of control statements requiring a bool:
Allow it, and make an arbitrary decision when it comes to null treatment
Disallow it, forcing you to make a decision each time it is relevant.
Note that the designers had much less of an issue with if(a < 123) statement, because "no" is a valid answer to questions "is null less than 123", "is null greater than 123", "is null equal to 123", and so on.
The if (b ?? false) and if (b ?? true) are very convenient constructs, which let you explain to the readers of your code and to the compiler in which way you wish to treat nulls stored in a bool? variable.

Every time I see someone using a nullable boolean bool?, I ask them why. Usually, the answer is -- "well, I'm not really sure". It is effectively creating a three state condition which in my opinion makes the code harder to read regardless. What does null mean, if it is always false then why bother with making it nullable in the first place?
But to answer your question more directly, I prefer the
if (b ?? false)
syntax over the
if (b.GetValueOrDefault())

Some years later and from personal experience I can tell that following syntax is clearly a winner:
if(b == false) { /* do something if false */ }
if(b == true) { /* do something if true */ }
if(b != false) { /* do something if NOT false, means true or null */ }
if(b != true) { /* do something if NOT true, means false or null */ }
What I thought as "ugly" turns out to be the easiest to understand.
== vs ??
Nullables are often results of linq queries and using ?? add unnecessary layer of complexity to understand the condition.
Compare
if(Items?.Any(o => o.IsSelected) == true)
vs
if(Items?.Any(o => o.IsSelected) ?? false)
The first one is much easier to read, it's a simple check if any item is selected.
When my (probably untrained?) mind reads the latter, I have to make a mental full stop at ??, do inversion and only then I understand when if block will be executed. With ?? I am likely to make a mistake when quickly looking throught the code written by someone else or even my own code given enough time has passed.

C# Null propagating operator / Conditional access expression & if blocks

The Null propagating operator / Conditional access expression coming in c#-6.0 looks like quite a handy feature. But I'm curious if it will help solve the problem of checking if a child member is not null and then calling a Boolean method on said child member inside an if block:
public class Container<int>{
IEnumerable<int> Objects {get;set;}
}
public Container BuildContainer()
{
var c = new Container();
if (/* Some Random Condition */)
c.Objects = new List<int>{1,2,4};
}
public void Test()
{
var c = BuildContainer();
//Old way
if ( null != c && null != c.Objects && c.Objects.Any())
Console.Write("Container has items!");
//C# 6 way?
if (c?.Object?.Any())
Console.Write("Container has items!");
}
Will c?.Object?.Any() compile? If the propagating operator short circuits (I assume that's the right term) to null then you have if (null), which isn't valid.
Will the C# team address this concern or am I missing the intended use case for the null propagating operator?

It won't work this way. You can just skip the explanation and see the code below :)
As you know ?. operator will return null if a child member is null. But what happens if we try to get a non-nullable member, like the Any() method, that returns bool? The answer is that the compiler will "wrap" a return value in Nullable<>. For example, Object?.Any() will give us bool? (which is Nullable<bool>), not bool.
The only thing that doesn't let us use this expression in the if statement is that it can't be implicitly casted to bool. But you can do comparison explicitly, I prefer comparing to true like this:
if (c?.Object?.Any() == true)
Console.Write("Container has items!");
Thanks to #DaveSexton there's another way:
if (c?.Object?.Any() ?? false)
Console.Write("Container has items!");
But as for me, comparison to true seems more natural :)

Null-conditional operator would return null or the value at the end of expression. For value types It will return result in Nullable<T>, so in your case it would be Nullabe<bool>. If we look at the example in the document for Upcoming Features in C# (specified here), it has an example:
int? first = customers?[0].Orders.Count();
In the above example, instead of int, Nullable<int> would be returned. For bool it will return Nullable<bool>.
If you try the following code in Visual Studio "14" CTP:
Nullable<bool> ifExist = c?.Objects?.Any();
The result of the above line would be a Nullable<bool>/bool?. Later you can do the comparison like:
Using null-coalescing operator ??
if (c?.Object?.Any() ?? false)
Using Nullable<T>.GetValueOrDefault Method
if ((c?.Objects?.Any()).GetValueOrDefault())
Using comparison against true
if (c?.Objects?.Any() == true)

var x = c?.Objects?.Any() is going to give you a nullable boolean, and as others have said, this means you can use an equality operator like this
x == true
or you can use null coalescing like this to have your result not be nullable
var x = c?.Objects?.Any() ?? false
But, personally, I think that 3-state (nullable) booleans are code smell. Even if this one is practically invisible, its existence should encourage you to think about what you are actually trying to do and determine if a nullable boolean is actually the way to go. In this case, I think that what you really want to do is something like this -
var objects = c?.Objects ?? Enumerable.Empty<Object>();
if (objects.Any())
{
...
}
Put that in an extension method and it will be even more succinct -
public static bool IsNullOrEmpty<T>(this IEnumerable<T> collection)
{
return !(collection ?? Enumerable.Empty<T>()).Any()
}

Is there a conditional operator for setting a variable in C# to the value of another variable if the latter isn't null?

Something like the ternary operator (?:) or the null coalescing operator (??). It seems silly to me to take up two lines and be so wordy when the other operators exist.
EDIT:
Since it's requested, here's two possible examples of what I hope that I can find
var variable ?= mightBeNull;
or
var variable = mightBeNull != null ? mightBeNull
Really, it's either something that can be used to assign a value, if it's not null, to a variable or an If without an Else packaged nicely in an operator.

The ??= operator is coming to C# 8.
int? i = null; // i = null
i ??= 0; // i = 0
i ??= 1; // i = 0
// different ways of writing 'i ??= 0;':
i = i ?? 0;
if (i == null) i = 0;

So you want this?
if (other != null)
someVariable = other;
You could do the following, but I'd argue that the above is better due to clarity and possible side effects:
someVariable = other ?? someVariable;
The above might cause side effects if someVariable is a property and either the get or set can cause side effects; this shouldn't be important if your property follows the ordinary guidelines. Or, as Servy points out, even if it's a field, it could created different semantics in a multithreaded app. I should note that in the first example, you read other twice, which also has the potential for complexity to enter (though a smaller potential than the latter example).

I bet this is what you are looking for.
Let's say we have a function, myFunction that says whether the argument passed input is null or not. If input is null, it will return "Input is null!", else it will return "Input is not null".
This is the normal approach:
public String myFunction(string input) {
if (input == null)
return "Input is null!";
else
return "Input is not null";
}
And this is the other approach (What you are looking for):
public String myFunction(string input) {
return (input == null) ? "Input is null!" : "Input is not null";
}
It is called (?: conditional operator).

To assign a value to a variable only if it is not null, you would need to use an if. Neither the conditinal nor the null coalesce operators would do that.
if(somethingElse != null) something = somethingElse;
There is no specific operator in C# that does exactly this.

In Visual Studio 2015 C# there is a new operator called the Null-Conditional that does what you are asking. It is the ?. or ? operator.
int? length = customers?.Length; // null if customers is null
Customer first = customers?[0]; // null if customers is null
int? count = customers?[0]?.Orders?.Count(); // null if customers, the first customer, or Orders is null
Currently useable in previous versions of C# but not an operator but rather a one liner would be to use the ? : statement
?: operator
condition ? first_expression : second_expression;
AssingningTO = (someVar == null) ? null: someVar; // if null assign null ELSE assign someVar
AssingningTO = (someVar == null) ? String.Empth(): someVar; // if null assign empty string else someVar

Nullable types can represent all the values of an underlying type, and an additional null value.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/2cf62fcy.aspx

Null and blank values

What's the best way of writing robust code so that a variable can be checked for null and blank.
e.g.
string a;
if((a != null) && (a.Length() > 0))
{
//do some thing with a
}

For strings, there is
if (String.IsNullOrEmpty(a))

You can define an extension method to allow you to do this on many things:
static public bool IsNullOrEmpty<T>(this IEnumerable <T>input)
{
return input == null || input.Count() == 0;
}
It already exists as a static method on the System.String class for strings, as has been pointed out.

And if you are using .NET 4.0 you might want to take a look at String.IsNullOrWhiteSpace.

From version 2.0 you can use IsNullOrEmpty.
string a;
...
if (string.IsNullOrEmpty(a)) ...

if(string.IsNullOrEmpty(string name))
{
/// write ur code
}

for strings:
string a;
if(!String.IsNullOrEmpty(a))
{
//do something with a
}
for specific types you could create an extention method
note that i've used HasValue instead of IsNullorEmpty because 99% of the times you will have to use the !-operator if you use IsNullOrEmpty which I find quite unreadable
public static bool HasValue(this MyType value)
{
//do some testing to see if your specific type is considered filled
}

I find Apache Commons.Lang StringUtils (Java)'s naming a lot easier: isEmpty() checks for null or empty string, isBlank() checks for null, empty string, or whitespace-only. isNullOrEmpty might be more descriptive, but empty and null is, in most cases you use it, the same thing.

Shortest way to check for null and assign another value if not

I am pulling varchar values out of a DB and want to set the string I am assigning them to as "" if they are null. I'm currently doing it like this:
if (string.IsNullOrEmpty(planRec.approved_by) == true)
this.approved_by = "";
else
this.approved_by = planRec.approved_by.toString();
There seems like there should be a way to do this in a single line something like:
this.approved_by = "" || planRec.approved_by.toString();
However I can't find an optimal way to do this. Is there a better way or is what I have the best way to do it?

Try this:
this.approved_by = IsNullOrEmpty(planRec.approved_by) ? "" : planRec.approved_by.toString();
You can also use the null-coalescing operator as other have said - since no one has given an example that works with your code here is one:
this.approved_by = planRec.approved_by ?? planRec.approved_by.toString();
But this example only works since a possible value for this.approved_by is the same as one of the potential values that you wish to set it to. For all other cases you will need to use the conditional operator as I showed in my first example.

Starting with C# 8.0, you can use the ??= operator to replace the code of the form
if (variable is null)
{
variable = expression;
}
with the following code:
variable ??= expression;
More information is here

You are looking for the C# coalesce operator: ??. This operator takes a left and right argument. If the left hand side of the operator is null or a nullable with no value it will return the right argument. Otherwise it will return the left.
var x = somePossiblyNullValue ?? valueIfNull;

The coalesce operator (??) is what you want, I believe.

My guess is the best you can come up with is
this.approved_by = IsNullOrEmpty(planRec.approved_by) ? string.Empty
: planRec.approved_by.ToString();
Of course since you're hinting at the fact that approved_by is an object (which cannot equal ""), this would be rewritten as
this.approved_by = (planRec.approved_by ?? string.Empty).ToString();

With C#6 there is a slightly shorter way for the case where planRec.approved_by is not a string:
this.approved_by = planRec.approved_by?.ToString() ?? "";

Use the C# coalesce operator: ??
// if Value is not null, newValue = Value else if Value is null newValue is YournullValue
var newValue = Value ?? YourNullReplacement;

To extend #Dave's answer...if planRec.approved_by is already a string
this.approved_by = planRec.approved_by ?? "";

The accepted answer was correct in time, when it was given.
For people still finding this question:
Today you can use the ??= Operator.
e.g:
private string _test = null;
private void InitIfNull(){
_test ??= "Init";
}

To assign a non-empty variable without repeating the actual variable name (and without assigning anything if variable is null!), you can use a little helper method with a Action parameter:
public static void CallIfNonEmpty(string value, Action<string> action)
{
if (!string.IsNullOrEmpty(value))
action(value);
}
And then just use it:
CallIfNonEmpty(this.approved_by, (s) => planRec.approved_by = s);

You can also do it in your query, for instance in sql server, google ISNULL and CASE built-in functions.

I use extention method SelfChk
static class MyExt {
//Self Check
public static void SC(this string you,ref string me)
{
me = me ?? you;
}
}
Then use like
string a = null;
"A".SC(ref a);