C#6 Update
In C#6 ?. is now a language feature:
// C#1-5
propertyValue1 = myObject != null ? myObject.StringProperty : null;
// C#6
propertyValue1 = myObject?.StringProperty;
The question below still applies to older versions, but if developing a new application using the new ?. operator is far better practice.
Original Question:
I regularly want to access properties on possibly null objects:
string propertyValue1 = null;
if( myObject1 != null )
propertyValue1 = myObject1.StringProperty;
int propertyValue2 = 0;
if( myObject2 != null )
propertyValue2 = myObject2.IntProperty;
And so on...
I use this so often that I have a snippet for it.
You can shorten this to some extent with an inline if:
propertyValue1 = myObject != null ? myObject.StringProperty : null;
However this is a little clunky, especially if setting lots of properties or if more than one level can be null, for instance:
propertyValue1 = myObject != null ?
(myObject.ObjectProp != null ? myObject.ObjectProp.StringProperty) : null : null;
What I really want is ?? style syntax, which works great for directly null types:
int? i = SomeFunctionWhichMightReturnNull();
propertyValue2 = i ?? 0;
So I came up with the following:
public static TResult IfNotNull( this T input, Func action, TResult valueIfNull )
where T : class
{
if ( input != null ) return action( input );
else return valueIfNull;
}
//lets us have a null default if the type is nullable
public static TResult IfNotNull( this T input, Func action )
where T : class
where TResult : class
{ return input.IfNotNull( action, null ); }
This lets me us this syntax:
propertyValue1 = myObject1.IfNotNull( x => x.StringProperty );
propertyValue2 = myObject2.IfNotNull( x => x.IntProperty, 0);
//or one with multiple levels
propertyValue1 = myObject.IfNotNull(
o => o.ObjectProp.IfNotNull( p => p.StringProperty ) );
This simplifies these calls, but I'm not sure about checking this sort of extension method in - it does make the code a little easier to read, but at the cost of extending object. This would appear on everything, although I could put it in a specifically referenced namespace.
This example is a rather simple one, a slightly more complex one would be comparing two nullable object properties:
if( ( obj1 == null && obj2 == null ) ||
( obj1 != null && obj2 != null && obj1.Property == obj2.Property ) )
...
//becomes
if( obj1.NullCompare( obj2, (x,y) => x.Property == y.Property )
...
What are the pitfalls of using extensions in this way? Are other coders likely to be confused? Is this just abuse of extensions?
I guess what I really want here is a compiler/language extension:
propertyValue1 = myObject != null ? myObject.StringProperty : null;
//becomes
propertyValue1 = myObject?StringProperty;
This would make the complex case far easier:
propertyValue1 = myObject != null ?
(myObject.ObjectProp != null ? myObject.ObjectProp.StringProperty) : null
//becomes
propertyValue1 = myObject?ObjectProp?StringProperty;
This would only work for value types, but you could return nullable equivalents:
int? propertyValue2 = myObject?ObjectProp?IntProperty;
//or
int propertyValue3 = myObject?ObjectProp?IntProperty ?? 0;
JavaScript questions and answers, JavaScript questions pdf, JavaScript question bank, JavaScript questions and answers pdf, mcq on JavaScript pdf, JavaScript questions and solutions, JavaScript mcq Test , Interview JavaScript questions, JavaScript Questions for Interview, JavaScript MCQ (Multiple Choice Questions)
