Develop Reference

Cannot assign null to an implicitly-typed variable

According to Visual Studio this is not ok:
var foo = null;
But this is ok:
var foo = false ? (double?)null : null;
Why? Is the (double?)null affecting also the null in the else branch?

Implicitly typed variable declaration/assignment serves two purposes:
Decides the value of the variable, and
Decides the type of the variable.
Your first declaration has null for the value, with no way to figure out the type (it could be anything derived from System.Object, or a Nullable<T>). That is why it is an error.
Your second declaration pinpoints the type as Nullable<double> because of the cast. That is why C# allows it.
It goes without saying that double? foo = null would be much easier to read.

Because compiler cannot predict the type of null. Null can be assigned to any nullable datatype also to any reference type variable. So for implicit conversion, you have to cast null to some specific type.
var dt = (DateTime?)null; // This is correct
var dt1 = null; // This will throw compile time error.

The second example has double? type and the compiler knows it. According to documentation
It is important to understand that the var keyword does not mean
"variant" and does not indicate that the variable is loosely typed, or
late-bound. It just means that the compiler determines and assigns the
most appropriate type.
The compiler should ensure the type match with var.
var foo = null;
The compiler can't identify the type of foo.
var foo = false ? (double?)null : null;
Now the foo has double? type.

Assigning null to a var to a value, VS can't identify what type gonna be (double,int,bool etc). Var is commonly used when you don't know what type your value gonna be.
Your second declaration pinpoints the type as Nullable that's why you don't get an exception/error.

What is the difference between these two casting methods? [duplicate]

Consider the following code:
void Handler(object o, EventArgs e)
{
// I swear o is a string
string s = (string)o; // 1
//-OR-
string s = o as string; // 2
// -OR-
string s = o.ToString(); // 3
}
What is the difference between the three types of casting (okay, the 3rd one is not a casting, but you get the intent). Which one should be preferred?

string s = (string)o; // 1
Throws InvalidCastException if o is not a string. Otherwise, assigns o to s, even if o is null.
string s = o as string; // 2
Assigns null to s if o is not a string or if o is null. For this reason, you cannot use it with value types (the operator could never return null in that case). Otherwise, assigns o to s.
string s = o.ToString(); // 3
Causes a NullReferenceException if o is null. Assigns whatever o.ToString() returns to s, no matter what type o is.
Use 1 for most conversions - it's simple and straightforward. I tend to almost never use 2 since if something is not the right type, I usually expect an exception to occur. I have only seen a need for this return-null type of functionality with badly designed libraries which use error codes (e.g. return null = error, instead of using exceptions).
3 is not a cast and is just a method invocation. Use it for when you need the string representation of a non-string object.

string s = (string)o; Use when something should
definitely be the other thing.
string s = o as string; Use when something might be the other
thing.
string s = o.ToString(); Use when you don't care what
it is but you just want to use the
available string representation.

It really depends on whether you know if o is a string and what you want to do with it. If your comment means that o really really is a string, I'd prefer the straight (string)o cast - it's unlikely to fail.
The biggest advantage of using the straight cast is that when it fails, you get an InvalidCastException, which tells you pretty much what went wrong.
With the as operator, if o isn't a string, s is set to null, which is handy if you're unsure and want to test s:
string s = o as string;
if ( s == null )
{
// well that's not good!
gotoPlanB();
}
However, if you don't perform that test, you'll use s later and have a NullReferenceException thrown. These tend to be more common and a lot harder to track down once they happens out in the wild, as nearly every line dereferences a variable and may throw one. On the other hand, if you're trying to cast to a value type (any primitive, or structs such as DateTime), you have to use the straight cast - the as won't work.
In the special case of converting to a string, every object has a ToString, so your third method may be okay if o isn't null and you think the ToString method might do what you want.

'as' is based on 'is', which is a keyword that checks at runtime if the object is polimorphycally compatible (basically if a cast can be made) and returns null if the check fails.
These two are equivalent:
Using 'as':
string s = o as string;
Using 'is':
if(o is string)
s = o;
else
s = null;
On the contrary, the c-style cast is made also at runtime, but throws an exception if the cast cannot be made.
Just to add an important fact:
The 'as' keyword only works with reference types. You cannot do:
// I swear i is an int
int number = i as int;
In those cases you have to use casting.

If you already know what type it can cast to, use a C-style cast:
var o = (string) iKnowThisIsAString;
Note that only with a C-style cast can you perform explicit type coercion.
If you don't know whether it's the desired type and you're going to use it if it is, use as keyword:
var s = o as string;
if (s != null) return s.Replace("_","-");
//or for early return:
if (s==null) return;
Note that as will not call any type conversion operators. It will only be non-null if the object is not null and natively of the specified type.
Use ToString() to get a human-readable string representation of any object, even if it can't cast to string.

The as keyword is good in asp.net when you use the FindControl method.
Hyperlink link = this.FindControl("linkid") as Hyperlink;
if (link != null)
{
...
}
This means you can operate on the typed variable rather then having to then cast it from object like you would with a direct cast:
object linkObj = this.FindControl("linkid");
if (link != null)
{
Hyperlink link = (Hyperlink)linkObj;
}
It's not a huge thing, but it saves lines of code and variable assignment, plus it's more readable

According to experiments run on this page: http://www.dotnetguru2.org/sebastienros/index.php/2006/02/24/cast_vs_as
(this page is having some "illegal referrer" errors show up sometimes, so just refresh if it does)
Conclusion is, the "as" operator is normally faster than a cast. Sometimes by many times faster, sometimes just barely faster.
I peronsonally thing "as" is also more readable.
So, since it is both faster and "safer" (wont throw exception), and possibly easier to read, I recommend using "as" all the time.

2 is useful for casting to a derived type.
Suppose a is an Animal:
b = a as Badger;
c = a as Cow;
if (b != null)
b.EatSnails();
else if (c != null)
c.EatGrass();
will get a fed with a minimum of casts.

"(string)o" will result in an InvalidCastException as there's no direct cast.
"o as string" will result in s being a null reference, rather than an exception being thrown.
"o.ToString()" isn't a cast of any sort per-se, it's a method that's implemented by object, and thus in one way or another, by every class in .net that "does something" with the instance of the class it's called on and returns a string.
Don't forget that for converting to string, there's also Convert.ToString(someType instanceOfThatType) where someType is one of a set of types, essentially the frameworks base types.

It seems the two of them are conceptually different.
Direct Casting
Types don't have to be strictly related. It comes in all types of flavors.
Custom implicit/explicit casting: Usually a new object is created.
Value Type Implicit: Copy without losing information.
Value Type Explicit: Copy and information might be lost.
IS-A relationship: Change reference type, otherwise throws exception.
Same type: 'Casting is redundant'.
It feels like the object is going to be converted into something else.
AS operator
Types have a direct relationship. As in:
Reference Types: IS-A relationship Objects are always the same, just the reference changes.
Value Types: Copy boxing and nullable types.
It feels like the you are going to handle the object in a different way.
Samples and IL
class TypeA
{
public int value;
}
class TypeB
{
public int number;
public static explicit operator TypeB(TypeA v)
{
return new TypeB() { number = v.value };
}
}
class TypeC : TypeB { }
interface IFoo { }
class TypeD : TypeA, IFoo { }
void Run()
{
TypeA customTypeA = new TypeD() { value = 10 };
long longValue = long.MaxValue;
int intValue = int.MaxValue;
// Casting
TypeB typeB = (TypeB)customTypeA; // custom explicit casting -- IL: call class ConsoleApp1.Program/TypeB ConsoleApp1.Program/TypeB::op_Explicit(class ConsoleApp1.Program/TypeA)
IFoo foo = (IFoo)customTypeA; // is-a reference -- IL: castclass ConsoleApp1.Program/IFoo
int loseValue = (int)longValue; // explicit -- IL: conv.i4
long dontLose = intValue; // implict -- IL: conv.i8
// AS
int? wraps = intValue as int?; // nullable wrapper -- IL: call instance void valuetype [System.Runtime]System.Nullable`1<int32>::.ctor(!0)
object o1 = intValue as object; // box -- IL: box [System.Runtime]System.Int32
TypeD d1 = customTypeA as TypeD; // reference conversion -- IL: isinst ConsoleApp1.Program/TypeD
IFoo f1 = customTypeA as IFoo; // reference conversion -- IL: isinst ConsoleApp1.Program/IFoo
//TypeC d = customTypeA as TypeC; // wouldn't compile
}

All given answers are good, if i might add something:
To directly use string's methods and properties (e.g. ToLower) you can't write:
(string)o.ToLower(); // won't compile
you can only write:
((string)o).ToLower();
but you could write instead:
(o as string).ToLower();
The as option is more readable (at least to my opinion).

string s = o as string; // 2
Is prefered, as it avoids the performance penalty of double casting.

I would like to attract attention to the following specifics of the as operator:
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/csharp/language-reference/keywords/as
Note that the as operator performs only reference conversions,
nullable conversions, and boxing conversions. The as operator can't
perform other conversions, such as user-defined conversions, which
should instead be performed by using cast expressions.

Use direct cast string s = (string) o; if in the logical context of your app string is the only valid type. With this approach, you will get InvalidCastException and implement the principle of Fail-fast. Your logic will be protected from passing the invalid type further or get NullReferenceException if used as operator.
If the logic expects several different types cast string s = o as string; and check it on null or use is operator.
New cool feature have appeared in C# 7.0 to simplify cast and check is a Pattern matching:
if(o is string s)
{
// Use string variable s
}
or
switch (o)
{
case int i:
// Use int variable i
break;
case string s:
// Use string variable s
break;
}

When trying to get the string representation of anything (of any type) that could potentially be null, I prefer the below line of code. It's compact, it invokes ToString(), and it correctly handles nulls. If o is null, s will contain String.Empty.
String s = String.Concat(o);

Since nobody mentioned it, the closest to instanceOf to Java by keyword is this:
obj.GetType().IsInstanceOfType(otherObj)

C# - checking if a variable is initialized

I want to check if a variable is initialized at run time, programmatically. To make the reasons for this less mysterious, please see the following incomplete code:
string s;
if (someCondition) s = someValue;
if (someOtherCondition) s = someOtherValue;
bool sIsUninitialized = /* assign value correctly */;
if (!sIsUninitialized) Console.WriteLine(s) else throw new Exception("Please initialize s.");
And complete the relevant bit.
One hacky solution is to initialize s with a default value:
string s = "zanzibar";
And then check if it changed:
bool sIsUninitialized = s == "zanzibar";
However, what if someValue or someOtherValue happen to be "zanzibar" as well? Then I have a bug. Any better way?

Code won't even compile if the compiler knows a variable hasn't been initialized.
string s;
if (condition) s = "test";
// compiler error here: use of unassigned local variable 's'
if (s == null) Console.Writeline("uninitialized");
In other cases you could use the default keyword if a variable may not have been initialized. For example, in the following case:
class X
{
private string s;
public void Y()
{
Console.WriteLine(s == default(string)); // this evaluates to true
}
}
The documentation states that default(T) will give null for reference types, and 0 for value types. So as pointed out in the comments, this is really just the same as checking for null.
This all obscures the fact that you should really initialize variables, to null or whatever, when they are first declared.

With C# 2.0, you have the Nullable operator that allows you to set an initial value of null for heretofore value types, allowing for such things as:
int? x = null;
if (x.HasValue)
{
Console.WriteLine("Value for x: " + num.Value);
}
Which yields:
"Value for x: Null".

Just assign it null by default, not a string value

Here's one way:
string s;
if (someCondition) { s = someValue; }
else if (someOtherCondition) { s = someOtherValue; }
else { throw new Exception("Please initialize s."); }
Console.WriteLine(s)
This might be preferable for checking if the string is null, because maybe someValue is a method that can sometimes return null. In other words, maybe null is a legitimate value to initialize the string to.
Personally I like this better than an isInitialized flag. Why introduce an extra flag variable unless you have to? I don't think it is more readable.

You can keep a separate flag that indicates that the string has been initialized:
string s = null;
bool init = false;
if (conditionOne) {
s = someValueOne;
init = true;
}
if (conditionTwo) {
s = someValueTwo;
init = true;
}
if (!init) {
...
}
This will take care of situations when s is assigned, including the cases when it is assigned null, empty string, or "zanzibar".
Another solution is to make a static string to denote "uninitialized" value, and use Object.ReferenceEquals instead of == to check if it has changed. However, the bool variable approach expresses your intent a lot more explicitly.

I would agree with Vytalyi that a default value of null should be used when possible, however, not all types (like int) are nullable. You could allocate the variable as a nullable type as explained by David W, but this could break a lot of code in a large codebase due to having to refine the nullable type to its primitive type before access.
This generic method extension should help for those who deal with large codebases where major design decisions were already made by a predecessor:
public static bool IsDefault<T>(this T value)
=> ((object) value == (object) default(T));
If you are staring from scratch, just take advantage of nullable types and initialize it as null; that C# feature was implemented for a reason.

I pick initialization values that can never be used, typical values include String.Empty, null, -1, and a 256 character random string generator .

In general, assign the default to be null or String.Empty. For situations where you cannot use those "empty" values, define a constant to represent your application-specific uninitialized value:
const string UninitializedString = "zanzibar";
Then reference that value whenever you want to initialize or test for initialization:
string foo = UnininitializedString;
if (foo == UninitiaizedString) {
// Do something
}
Remember that strings are immutable constants in C# so there is really only one instance of UninitializedString (which is why the comparison works).

Nullable Object must have a value #2

I'm trying to reuse the same code I've always used but now it is encountering an error.
I'm looping through various user tables, and in there I do this:
DateTime dcdt = (DateTime)u.DateCreated;
DateTime lldt = (DateTime)u.LastLogon;
userRow["DateCreated"] = dcdt.ToShortDateString();
inside the loop. I get the error:
System.InvalidOperationException: Nullable object must have a value.
The error highlights "lldt" line, instead of "dcdt" which comes first. That is strange in and of itself. Both these fields in the database "allow nulls" is checked. And they both could be null or neither might be null.
The two values are both listed as DateTime? types through intellisense.
I don't understand why ASP.NET refuses to allow me to output blank for null dates. If it is empty/null, then logic would suggest that ASP.NET should just print nothing.
How else am I suppose to output null dates? I tried adding if statements to prevent trying to cast null DateTimes, but it doesn't help, it makes no sense.

As you've said, the data type of u.LastLogon is DateTime?. This means that it may or may not have a value. By casting to DateTime, you are requiring it to have a value. In this case, it does not.
Depending on what you're trying to do with it, you may want to check the HasValue property:
userRow["LastLogon"] = u.LastLogin.HasValue ?
(object) u.LastLogin.ToShortDateString() : DBNull.Value;
If your database LastLogon column is of DateTime type, then you should be able to do:
userRow["LastLogon"] = u.LastLogin.HasValue ?
(object) u.LastLogin.Value : DBNull.Value;

You need to do something like the following in your data access code:
DataTable dt = ExecuteSomeQuery() ;
object value = dt.Rows[0]["nullable_datetime_column"] ;
DateTime? instance = value != null && value is DateTime ? (DateTime?)value : (DateTime?)null ) ;
If the column returned is NULL, it will be returned as a System.DBNull, otherwise it will be returned as an instance of DateTime (or whatever the appropriate mapped type is — int, string, etc). Consequently, you need to check the type of object returned from the query before trying to cast it.

Looks like you are trying to call a method (dcdt.ToShortDateString()) on a DateTime? which doesn't have a value (it is, indeed, null). Try this:
dcdt.HasValue ? dcdt.ToShortDateString() : String.Empty;
EDIT (Just re-read the question): Also, don't try to convert to DateTime. Preserve the nullable.
EDIT #2 (based on comments):
Try this:
if (dcdt.HasValue)
{ userRow["DateCreated"] = dcdt.ToShortDateString(); }
else
{ userRow = DbNull.Value }

I saw that Dexter asked how he should go about it. Well, I would create an extension.
static class DateTimeExtensions
{
public static string ToString(this DateTime? dateTime, string format)
{
return dateTime.HasValue ? dateTime.Value.ToString(format) : String.Empty;
}
}
And then you can do:
DateTime? dt = null;
DateTime? dt2 = DateTime.Now;
Console.WriteLine(dt.ToString("dd-MM-yy"));
Console.WriteLine(dt2.ToString("dd-MM-yy"));
Note that I can call extension method on a nullable type if the object is null.

The problem is .NET null is not the same as SQL NULL. SQL Null is System.DBNull. So it is a [non-null] value in .NET.

Short answer
DateTime? dateTime = u.LastLogon?.ToShortDateString()

cannot convert type 'string' to 'int?' via a reference conversion, boxing conversion, unboxing conversion, wrapping conversion or null type conversion

C# accepts the following:
object o = "hello";
int? i = o as int?;
if (i == null) {
// o was not a boxed int
}
else {
// Can use i.Value to recover the original boxed value
}
But not
String o = "hello";
int? i = o as int?;
if (i == null) {
// o was not a boxed int
}
else {
// Can use i.Value to recover the original boxed value
}
I'm just wondering about the behaviour of the keyword as in C#.
The same as in Java this would fail:
Object test1 = "hello";
Integer test2 = (Integer) test1;
String test3 = "hello";
Integer test4 = (Integer) test3; //compilation error

The compiler knows that a string can never be an int? so it tells you that. That doesn't mean that int? isn't useful. Your attempted use case is far from the normal one. The normal one is "I want to represent an integer and the possibility that the value is missing/unknown". For that, int? works extremely well.
Why would you expect your original code to work? Why would it be helpful?
Note that you can use as with nullable types, for unboxing:
object o = "hello";
int? i = o as int?;
if (i == null)
{
// o was not a boxed int
}
else
{
// Can use i.Value to recover the original boxed value
}
EDIT: Having seen your comment, you don't use as to parse things. You probably want to use int.TryParse:
string text = "123":
int value;
if (int.TryParse(text, out value))
{
Console.WriteLine("Parsed successfully: {0}", value);
}
else
{
Console.WriteLine("Unable to parse text as an integer");
}
If you're sure the string is meant to be an integer (i.e. it's a bug otherwise) then you can just use int.Parse:
int value = int.Parse(text);
That will throw an exception if the parsing fails.
Note also that both of these methods allows you to specify a format provider (usually a culture info) which allows you to express how numbers are expressed in that format (e.g. thousands separators).
EDIT: In answer to your new question, the compiler prevents this because it knows a string can't possibly be a boxed int - the conversion will never ever succeed. When it only knows that the original value is an object, it might succeed.
For instance, suppose I said to you, "Here's a shape: is it a square?" That's a sensible question. It's reasonable to ask it: you can't tell without looking at the shape.
If, however, I said: "Here's a triangle: is it a square?" Then you'd be reasonably entitled to laugh in my face, as a triangle can't possibly be a square - the question doesn't make sense.

int? means a nullable integer type, not an int that could contain any other type of variable.
If you want a variable type that could contain an int or a string, you'd have to use an object, or a string I suppose, and then live a life filled with type casting. I don't know why you would want to do that, though.
int? allows you to store any integer value, or a null value. Which is useful when say the answer to the question "How many orders has this person placed" is legitimately "I don't know" instead of a number of orders, or zero which would be "I know for a fact this person has never placed an order".

I want to add some further information.
An other case, why the cast is invalid and the compiler throws an error on compilation is, that System.String is marked as sealed. So the compiler knows from which types System.String inherites and to which types you can cast the string using the as-operator.
Due to the keyword sealed, the compiler also knows that you cannot inherit from System.String to add functionality or implement some additional interfaces.
The code below is an example and the compiler will throw the following error on compilation
Cannot convert type 'SealedClass' to
'ICastToInterface' via a reference
conversion, boxing conversion,
unboxing conversion, wrapping
conversion, or null type conversion
public class UnsealedClass {
// some code
}
public sealed class SealedClass {
// some code
}
public interface ICastToInterface {
// some code
}
public class Test {
public Test() {
UnsealedClass unsealedClass = new UnsealedClass();
SealedClass sealedClass = new SealedClass();
ICastToInterface unsealedCast = unsealedClass as ICastToInterface; // This works fine
ICastToInterface sealedCast = sealedClass as ICastToInterface; // This won´t compile, cause SealedClass is sealed
}
}

but you can check the value of null and set it to null.
int? blah;
if (blah == null)
{}

int? is a nullable integer, it has nothing to do with casting and the as keyword. "String" is a string type object, which is not convertible to an int (nullable or non-nullable).
The as Keyword is virtually the same as casting using brackets except it will not return an error, it will set the object to null:
int i = 1;
object o = i; //boxing
int j = (int)o; //unboxing
This first example works as the object assigned to o is an int.
Now consider:
string i = "MyString";
object o = MyString;
int j = (int)o //unboxing raises exception
int j = o as int; //raises compilation Error as int is not nullable
int? j = o as int?; /// o == null
I hope that that helps to explain the difference between the two concepts.
Richard