Sign in to follow this  

C# null testing

This topic is 3487 days old which is more than the 365 day threshold we allow for new replies. Please post a new topic.

If you intended to correct an error in the post then please contact us.

Recommended Posts

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]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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()


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In C#, it's that way because of a case like this:


object a;
object b;

// something to one or both of the objects

if (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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. ^_^

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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#.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:
Original post by ChaosEngine
if (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])

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:
Original post by Koobazaur
Quote:
Original post by ChaosEngine
if (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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This topic is 3487 days old which is more than the 365 day threshold we allow for new replies. Please post a new topic.

If you intended to correct an error in the post then please contact us.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this