35

edit 2015 This question and its answers are no longer relevant. It was asked before the advent of C# 6, which has the null propagating opertor (?.), which obviates the hacky-workarounds discussed in this question and subsequent answers. As of 2015, in C# you should now use Form.ActiveForm?.ActiveControl?.Name.

I've been thinking about the null propagation problem in .NET, which often leads to ugly, repeated code like this:

Attempt #1 usual code:

string activeControlName = null; var activeForm = Form.ActiveForm; if (activeForm != null) { var activeControl = activeForm.ActiveControl; if(activeControl != null) { activeControlname = activeControl.Name; } }

There have been a few discussions on StackOverflow about a Maybe<T> monad, or using some kind of "if not null" extension method:

Attempt #2, extension method:

// Usage: var activeControlName = Form.ActiveForm .IfNotNull(form => form.ActiveControl) .IfNotNull(control => control.Name); // Definition: public static TReturn IfNotNull<TReturn, T>(T instance, Func<T, TReturn> getter) where T : class { if (instance != null ) return getter(instance); return null; }

I think this is better, however, there's a bit of syntactic messy-ness with the repeated "IfNotNull" and the lambdas. I'm now considering this design:

Attempt #3, Maybe<T> with extension method

// Usage: var activeControlName = (from window in Form.ActiveForm.Maybe() from control in window.ActiveControl.Maybe() select control.Name).FirstOrDefault(); // Definition: public struct Maybe<T> : IEnumerable<T> where T : class { private readonly T instance; public Maybe(T instance) { this.instance = instance; } public T Value { get { return instance; } } public IEnumerator<T> GetEnumerator() { return Enumerable.Repeat(instance, instance == null ? 0 : 1).GetEnumerator(); } System.Collections.IEnumerator System.Collections.IEnumerable.GetEnumerator() { return this.GetEnumerator(); } } public static class MaybeExtensions { public static Maybe<T> Maybe<T>(this T instance) where T : class { return new Maybe<T>(instance); } }

My question is: is this an evil abuse of extension methods? Is it better than the old usual null checks?

Improve this question
7
  • Is the code for attempts 2&3 sourced from smellegantcode.wordpress.com/2008/12/11/the-maybe-monad-in-c ? Commented Jun 1, 2012 at 23:21
  • No. I arrived at this code independently from that article. Commented Jun 3, 2012 at 3:15
  • 2
    You can use the project on codeplex at http://maybe.codeplex.com/ Syntax is string result=One.Maybe(o=>o.Two.Three.Four.Foo); string cityName= Employee.Maybe(e=>e.Person.Address.CityName); As answered in stackoverflow.com/a/2866634/52277 Commented Jun 9, 2013 at 5:26
  • Michael: I like that! Commented Jun 9, 2013 at 18:07
  • 2
    The benefit of using Maybe<T> is that you are being explicit about the possibility of null. I use this everywhere in my code where a method may not be able to return a value. IEnumerable<Maybe<T>> is easy to flatten using SelectMany. maybleList.SelectMany(p=>p) extracts the values from the items with a none null Value and discards the rest. Commented Dec 13, 2013 at 7:32

8 Answers 8

Reset to default
18

It's interesting that so many people independently pick the name IfNotNull, for this in C# - it must be the most sensible name possible! :)

Earliest one I've found on SO: Possible pitfalls of using this (extension method based) shorthand

My one (in ignorance of the above): Pipe forwards in C#

Another more recent example: How to check for nulls in a deep lambda expression?

There are a couple of reasons why the IfNotNull extension method may be unpopular.

  1. Some people are adamant that an extension method should throw an exception if its this parameter is null. I disagree if the method name makes it clear.

  2. Extensions that apply too broadly will tend to clutter up the auto-completion menu. This can be avoided by proper use of namespaces so they don't annoy people who don't want them, however.

I've played around with the IEnumerable approach also, just as an experiment to see how many things I could twist to fit the Linq keywords, but I think the end result is less readable than either the IfNotNull chaining or the raw imperative code.

I've ended up with a simple self-contained Maybe class with one static method (not an extension method) and that works very nicely for me. But then, I work with a small team, and my next most senior colleague is interested in functional programming and lambdas and so on, so he isn't put off by it.

Improve this answer
Sign up to request clarification or add additional context in comments.

Comments

14

Much as I'm a fan of extension methods, I don't think this is really helpful. You've still got the repetition of the expressions (in the monadic version), and it just means that you've got to explain Maybe to everyone. The added learning curve doesn't seem to have enough benefit in this case.

The IfNotNull version at least manages to avoid the repetition, but I think it's still just a bit too longwinded without actually being clearer.

Maybe one day we'll get a null-safe dereferencing operator...

Just as an aside, my favourite semi-evil extension method is:

public static void ThrowIfNull<T>(this T value, string name) where T : class { if (value == null) { throw new ArgumentNullException(name); } }

That lets you turn this:

void Foo(string x, string y) { if (x == null) { throw new ArgumentNullException(nameof(x)); } if (y == null) { throw new ArgumentNullException(nameof(y)); } ... }

into:

void Foo(string x, string y) { x.ThrowIfNull(nameof(x)); y.ThrowIfNull(nameof(y)); ... }

There's still the nasty repetition of the parameter name, but at least it's tidier. Of course, in .NET 4.0 I'd use Code Contracts, which is what I'm meant to be writing about right now... Stack Overflow is great work avoidance ;)

Improve this answer

8 Comments

Well thanks for the feedback. Yeah, the ideal solution to this problem is some kind of null-safe dereference operator, e.g. someThing?.Foo? Unfortunately, the C# team doesn't seem too keen on adding something like this, so I don't think we'll see this in the near future.
Couldn't you use reflection to magically discover the parameter name?
@Pedro: Not really. Even if you could reliably work out the method that called the extension method (without worrying about inlining) you'd still just have a value. In some cases you could then use reflection, if it were unambiguous - but not very often.
"in .NET 4 I'd use Code Contracts" Jon, the more I read about CC, the less impressed I am. A recent MSDN article seems to suggest CC is just for debugging purposes, as opposed to runtime enforcement. Thoughts?
If you using ThrowIfNull in conjunction with FxCop, you could introduce [ValidatedNotNullAttribute] so it stops complaining on the CA1062. More here: esmithy.net/2011/03/15/suppressing-ca1062
|
1

If you want an extension method to reduce the nested if's like you have, you might try something like this:

public static object GetProperty(this object o, Type t, string p) { if (o != null) { PropertyInfo pi = t.GetProperty(p); if (pi != null) { return pi.GetValue(o, null); } return null; } return null; }

so in your code you'd just do:

string activeControlName = (Form.ActiveForm as object) .GetProperty(typeof(Form),"ActiveControl") .GetProperty(typeof(Control),"Name");

I don't know if I'd want to use it to often due to the slowness of reflection, and I don't really think this much better than the alternative, but it should work, regardless of whether you hit a null along the way...

(Note: I might've gotten those types mixed up) :)

Improve this answer

4 Comments

It has the major disadvantage that if I change the name of the Name property to Description, then the code will still silently compile and then fail at runtime.
See my answer and Earwicker's links to previous answers, you can use a delegate (e.g. Func<A,B>) to get compile time safety to get the property you want instead of using string names of properties.
@Alex: Nice, hadn't thought about that, but if I ever decide it's worth using in code, I'll have to remember that. Thanks for the note :)
@Earwicker: Very good point. That's another disadvantage to note.
1

In case you're dealing with C# 6.0/VS 2015 and above, they now have a built-in solution for null propagation:

string ans = nullableString?.Length.ToString(); // null if nullableString == null, otherwise the number of characters as a string.
Improve this answer

1 Comment

Yep. This is clearly the way to go now that C# 6 is here. When I asked this question back in 2009 (!), the null propagating operator was merely a twinkle in Anders' eye. :-)
0

The initial sample works and is the easiest to read at a glance. Is there really a need to improve on that?

Improve this answer

2 Comments

And utilizing short-cut evaluation would mean that there is no need for a nested if: if (Form.ActiveForm != null && Form.ActiveForm.ActiveControl) fits in one line and is easily understood.
The ActiveForm thing was only an example -- usually the local variable is needed because it's an expensive function call, e.g. foo.GetExpensive(). With the initial sample, GetExpensive would need to be called multiple times. Yuck.
0

The IfNotNull solution is the best (until the C# team gives us a null-safe dereferencing operator, that is).

Improve this answer

Comments

0

I'm not too crazy about either solution. What was wrong with ashorter version of the original:

string activeControlName = null; if (Form.ActiveForm != null) if (Form.ActiveForm.ActivControl != null) activeControlname = activeControl.Name;

If not this, then I would look at writing a NotNullChain or FluentNotNull object than can chain a few not null tests in a row. I agree that the IfNotNull extension method acting on a null seems a little weird - even though extension methods are just syntactic sugar.

I think Mark Synowiec's answer might be able to made generic.

IMHO, I think the C# core team should look at the this "issue", although I think there are bigger things to tackle.

Improve this answer

Comments

0

Sure, original 2-nested IF is much more readable than other choices. But suggesting you want to solve problem more generally, here is another solution:

try { var activeForm = Form.ActiveForm; assumeIsNotNull(activeForm); var activeControl = activeForm.ActiveControl; assumeIsNotNull(activeControl); var activeControlname = activeControl.Name; } catch (AssumptionChainFailed) { }

where

class AssumptionChainFailed : Exception { } void assumeIsNotNull(object obj) { if (obj == null) throw new AssumptionChainFailed(); }
Improve this answer

3 Comments

I don't care for this solution. You're basically throwing a custom exception after each line of code. Doesn't feel any cleaner, doesn't give us much.
1. I see - it's no more usefull than just catching NullReferenceException. You are right here
2. Excepetion mechanism is somewhat more usefull, when your code will grow. You don't have to introduce lambda-style function call to C# (or equivalent LINQ-style) when only what you want is get activeControl.Name 3. Custom exc was introduced, 'cause of possible different type assertion, like "assumeIsTrue" and others. That had happend with my project.

Start asking to get answers

Find the answer to your question by asking.

Ask question

Explore related questions

See similar questions with these tags.