This question already has answers here:
What does x?.y?.z mean?
(3 answers)
Closed 6 years ago.
I was reviewing some code and I came across the following line of code:
List authorIntList = authorIds?.ToList();
In the example above, authorIds is an IEnumerable. What is the purpose of the ? in the line of code above? I'm not sure I've ever seen this pattern before. What does it do and in which version of .NET was it implemented?
That's called the "null conditional operator" -- i.e. ? and . together -- new to C# 6.0. What it means is that, if authorIds is not null, then it will call/return ToList() on it. Otherwise, it will return null. It's basically syntactic sugar so you don't have to write lengthier code like List AuthorIntList = authorIds != null ? authorIds.ToList() : null;.
The "Null Conditional Operator" exists as a way to shorthand "If this isn't null, do the thing, otherwise return null". It's basically the same as
List authorIntList = authorIds ? authorIDs.ToList() : null; //null coalescing
or
List authorIntList = null;
if(authorIDs != null) { authorIntList = authorIDs.ToList(); } //traditional if
It is a null conditional operator that in many languages people call it Elvis operator. It has been added from c# 6.0 and checks your code with null.
So if you have something like:
var x= a?.b?.c?.d;
x will be null if any of a,b,c or d be null. and it will be the value in d if all of them are not null. before you had to put them in if conditions.
if(a!= null && a.b!= null && a.b.c!= null)
{
x= a?.b?.c?.d;
}
Correction Null Conditional operator
https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dn986595.aspx
It's like saying if authorId's is not null then execute ToList() else returns null.
Related
I've just found this syntax:
date1 = date2?.ToString("yyyy-MM-dd") ?? date3;
Of course, being the first time I saw such a syntax, I did not understand it. After debugging, I understood that it is equivalent to:
if(date2 != null)
date1 = date2.ToString("yyyy-MM-dd");
else
date1 = date3;
My question is: why was this syntax introduced, since it is not legible at all, and it just economizes 3 lines of text?
Edit: my question is about the ? operator, not ??
That statement doesn't just economize 3 lines, it more readable and also spares a code block, which is important to allow more complex LINQ queries.
What do you think of these two?
var x = collection.Select(x => new SomeClass(x?.Property ?? "default"));
Opposed to:
var x = collection.Select(x =>
{
string value = null;
if (x != null)
{
value = x.Property;
}
if (value == null)
{
value = "default";
}
return new SomeClass(value);
}
);
The first is much more expressive and powerful. And what if you have more than one property?
They introduced the ?. operator for the same reason that they introduced the ?? operator: to shorten the code. The same argument you made against ?. could be made against ?? (and to a lesser degree could be made against the ternary operator ? :). But in the end I consider it useful (in the same way that I consider it useful the ternary operator ? :). It is readable if you know what it means. If you don't know what it means any operator is unreadable.
It is useful because the code that you wrote is correct only if date2 is a field/local variable/parameter... If it is a property, there is a guarantee that the property isn't read twice (something that could be quite important, depending on how the parameter is calculated). The code is changed to something like:
DateTime? temp = date2;
string date1 = temp != null ? temp.GetValueOrDefault().ToString("yyyy-MM-dd") : date3;
so it can get a little more complex than you thought.
This type of syntax was newly added with C# 6.0.
?. is called null-conditional.
This microsoft article describes all newly added features of C# 6.0 and also lists this new null-conditional operator.
This question already has answers here:
Deep null checking, is there a better way?
(16 answers)
Closed 5 years ago.
Can anyone tell me how do I optimize below code.
if (report != null &&
report.Breakdown != null &&
report.Breakdown.ContainsKey(reportName.ToString()) &&
report.Breakdown[reportName.ToString()].Result != null
)
As others have mentioned, you can use the ?. operator to combine some of your null checks. However, if you're after optimizing for performance, you should avoid the double dictionary lookup (ContainsKey and index access), going for a TryGetValue instead:
MyType match = null; // adjust type
if (report?.Breakdown?.TryGetValue(reportName.ToString(), out match) == true &&
match?.Result != null)
{
// ...
}
Ayman's answer is probably the best you can do for C# 6, for before that what you have there is pretty much the best you can do if all those objects are nullable.
The only way to optimize this further is to be checking if those objects are null before even calling the code, or better yet proofing your platform so this particular function shouldn't even be called in the first place if the values are null.
If you are just getting the value from from the dictionary however you can also simplify with the null coalescing operater '??'
Example:
MyDictionary['Key'] ?? "Default Value";
Thus if the Value at that entry is null you'll get the default instead.
So if this is just a fetch I'd just go
var foo =
report != null &&
report.Breakdown != null &&
report.Breakdown.ContainsKey(reportName.ToString()) ?
report.Breakdown[reportName.ToString()].Result ?? "Default" :
"Default";
But if you are actually doing things in the loop, then yeah you're pretty much at the best you can get there.
For C# 6 and newer, you can do it this way:
if (report?.Breakdown?.ContainsKey(reportName.ToString()) == true &&
report.Breakdown[reportName.ToString()].Result != null)
You can use null conditional operator but only on C# 6
if ( report?.Breakdown?.ContainsKey(reportName.ToString()) == true &&
report.Breakdown[reportName.ToString()].Result != null )
Can you try below? Also probably better to ship it to a method.
// unless report name is already a string
string reportNameString = reportName.ToString();
if ( report?.Breakdown?.ContainsKey(reportNameString) &&
report.Breakdown[reportNameString].Result != null )
{
// rest of the code
}
This question already has answers here:
Best way to check for nullable bool in a condition expression (if ...) [closed]
(13 answers)
Closed 8 years ago.
Working with nullable bools in C# I find myself writing this pattern a lot
if(model.some_value == null || model.some_value == false)
{
// do things if some_value is not true
}
Is there a more compact way to express this statement? I can't use non-nullable bools because I can't change the model, and I can't do this
if(model.some_value != true)
{
// do things if some_value is not true
}
Because this will throw a null reference exception if model.some_value is null
One idea I had:
I could write an extension method for bools like String.IsNullOrEmpty - bool.IsNullOrFalse. This would be neat enough but I'm wondering if there's some more obvious way of doing this already?
Use a null-coalescing operator to handle cases where the value is null.
if(model.some_value ?? false != true)
{
// do things if some_value is not true
}
From msdn:
?? Operator (C# Reference)
The ?? operator is called the null-coalescing operator. It returns the
left-hand operand if the operand is not null; otherwise it returns the
right hand operand.
https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms173224.aspx
Alternatively, a switch would do it.
switch(model.some_value)
{
case false:
case null:
// do things if some_value is not true
break;
}
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()
}
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