• Create Account

## C# null testing

Old topic!

Guest, the last post of this topic is over 60 days old and at this point you may not reply in this topic. If you wish to continue this conversation start a new topic.

9 replies to this topic

### #1ChaosEngine  Members

4743
Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 27 May 2008 - 12:57 PM

Sometimes it's the little things that really get to you. Right now, I'm getting really sick of typing " != null" in C#. This seems to be a very common test in C# (checking if someone has subscribed to an event, testing for a SelectedItem, the result of a find), so couldn't they have let you do a C++ style
if (someObj)
and cast null to false? I don't see why this would be a problem. I'm a relative noob with C#, so feel free to tell if I'm not using the correct C# idioms (in fact, please tell me there's a better way!) and while I'm ranting, I want specialised generics damnit!! [grin]
if you think programming is like sex, you probably haven't done much of either.-------------- - capn_midnight

### #2TheUnbeliever  Members

962
Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 27 May 2008 - 01:05 PM

Potentially of value may be the ?? null coalescing operator.

EDIT: Actually, I see this won't be particularly useful in the examples you give, but it's still handy to have.

### #3ChaosEngine  Members

4743
Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 27 May 2008 - 01:10 PM

Thanks, Unbeliever, but I'm afraid that doesn't help.

The ?? null coalescing operator is basically a shortcut for the ?: ternary op, which means that both operands must be of the same type, i.e. you can't do
void SomeMethod(){}someObject ?? SomeMethod();

anymore than you can do
someObject != null ? SomeMethod() : SomeOtherMethod()

### #4Nypyren  Members

10965
Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 27 May 2008 - 01:50 PM

In C#, it's that way because of a case like this:

object a;object b;// something to one or both of the objectsif (a == b)// now what happens if you have a typo:if (a = b)

Semantically, the expression with a typo will reduce to "if (object)", exactly like your example for testing against null. Since C# requires that the expression inside an "if" reduce to a boolean, instead of getting a runtime error, you get a compile-time error.

You could try bypassing this in C# 3.0 with an implicit typecast operator as an extension method, but I suspect those are specifically disallowed.

### #5Spodi  Members

642
Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 27 May 2008 - 02:53 PM

Sorry, think you'll just have to get used to it. I have never found a way around it, which I think is good. Trust me, its not that bad - at least its specific on what you are checking. C# likes to make you say what you want, not just guess it and hope its right, and its worth it. Think of it this way - you may waste a little time writing out != or == null, but at least you'll save a lot more using the .NET framework and the GC. ^_^
NetGore - Open source multiplayer RPG engine

### #6Telastyn  Members

3773
Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 27 May 2008 - 04:05 PM

If it's a user made class, and it makes sense, you can make an implicit casting operator to bool so if(foo){} works.

That said, you shouldn't. That behavior is specific to C, carried forward for compatibility reasons into C++ and promptly abandoned by anything since. nulls are far less common in a language like C# that forces initialization before use and promotes exceptions for exceptional circumstances (and null coalescing where appropriate).

Though yeah, invoking an unsubscribed/null event should be a no-op...

### #7TheTroll  Members

883
Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 27 May 2008 - 06:27 PM

I am trying to why you are having to do so much testing for null. I very rarely have to do this. So I am thinking there might be something about your design that is causing the need for this.

theTroll

### #8Cygon  Members

1215
Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 27 May 2008 - 08:01 PM

You have a null test whenever you implement your own object.Equals() override. It's not that uncommon.

I don't know of a shorter test, but I'm often even using object.ReferenceEquals(x, null) instead of x != null in order to avoid calling the operator != override. I guess that's just something you'll have to accept when programming in C#.

### #9Koobazaur  Members

866
Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 27 May 2008 - 09:25 PM

Quote:
 Original post by ChaosEngineif (someObj) and cast null to false?I don't see why this would be a problem.

What if someObj is a bool? now you need extra checks to see if it is either null or false ( if (someObj != true) if (someObj != null) [false] else [null])

### #10Telastyn  Members

3773
Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 28 May 2008 - 02:40 AM

Quote:
Original post by Koobazaur
Quote:
 Original post by ChaosEngineif (someObj) and cast null to false?I don't see why this would be a problem.

What if someObj is a bool? now you need extra checks to see if it is either null or false ( if (someObj != true) if (someObj != null) [false] else [null])

bools are not nullable.

A class which is implicitly convertible to bool will handle the null case.

Old topic!

Guest, the last post of this topic is over 60 days old and at this point you may not reply in this topic. If you wish to continue this conversation start a new topic.