Skip to content(if available)orjump to list(if available)

What's New in C# 14: Null-Conditional Assignments

hbcondo714

Nice but you still end up writing if null statements for handling null scenarios, per the author’s “Don't Overuse It” write-up

reactordev

Love to see conciseness for the sake of readability. Honestly I thought this was already a thing until I tried it a year ago…

I’m glad it’s now a thing. It’s an easy win, helps readability and helps to reduce the verbosity of some functions. Love it. Now, make the runtime faster…

rkagerer

More concise? Yes.

More readable? I'm less convinced on that one.

Some of those edge cases and their effects can get pretty nuanced. I fear this will get overused exactly as the article warns, and I'm going to see bloody questions marks all over codebases. I hope in time the mental overhead to interpret exactly what they're doing will become muscle memory...

zulu-inuoe

I'm looking forward to being able to use this. It doesn't sound like much but those extra three lines and variable assignment is duplicated a ton of times across our codebase so it'll be a nice change

coneonthefloor

I’d rather be explicit. If the value is null then it should be explicitly handled.

I feel like this is another step in the race to add every conceivable feature to a language, for the sake of it.

xboxnolifes

This is explicit though. The question mark operator is the developer explicitly asking for this behavior.

null

[deleted]

sieep

Looks interesting & I'm excited to try this out myself. I like the more verbose null/error handling personally in professional code, but maybe that's because im still working in framework! I'll certainly be using these in my personal projects that'll be on .NET 10

actionfromafar

You can use newer LangVersion in framework too.

kazinator

Null conditional assignment is bunk.

When you have an expression P which names a mutable place, and you execute P := X, the contract says that P now exhibits the value X, until it is assigned another value.

Conditional assignment fucks this up. When P doesn't exist, X is not stored. (Worse, it may even be that the expression X is not evaluated, depending on how deep the fuckery goes.)

Then when you access the same expression P, the conditional assignment becomes conditional access and you get back some default value like a nil.

Store X, get back nil.

That's like a hardware register, not a durable memory model.

It's okay for a config.connection?.retryPolicy to come up nil when there is no config.connection. It can be that the design makes nil a valid retry policy, representing some default. Or it could be that it is not the case, but the code which uses connection? handles the nil soon afterward.

But a store to config.connection?.retryPolicy not having an effect; that is dodgy.

What you need for config.connection? to do when the expression is being used to calculate a mutable place to assign to is to check that config.connection is null, and in that case, instantiate a representative instance of something which is then assigned to config.connnection, such that the config.connection.retryPolicy place then exists and the assignment can proceed.

This recognizable as a variation on COW (copy-on-write); having some default instance for reading, but allocating something on writing.

In a virtual memory system, freshly allocated memory can appear to contain zero bytes on access due to all of its pages being mapped to a single all-zero frame that exists in the entire system. Conceptually, the hardware could do away with even that all-zero frame and just have a page table entry which says "this is a zero-filled page", so the processor then fakes out the zero values without accessing anything. When the nonexistent page is written, then it gets the backing storage.

In order to instantiate settings.connection? we need to know what that has to be. If we have a static type system, it can come from that: the connection member is of some declared type of which a representative instance can be produced with all constructor parameters defaulted. Under a dynamic paradigm, the settings object can have a handler for this: a request to materialize a field of the object that is required for an assignment.

If you don't want a representative config.connection to be created when config.connection?.retryPolicy is assigned, preferring instead that config.connection stays null, and the assignment is sent to the bit buckets, you have incredibly bad taste and a poor understanding of software engineering and programming language design --- and the design of your program is scatter-brained accordingly.

wslh

Isn't this more confusing? Because it skip the code if the value is null and I don't think it is normal to follow the flow assuming nothing has happened.

gus_massa

From the article:

> If config?.Settings is null, the assignment is skipped.

If the right hand expression has side effects, are they run? I guess they do, and that would make the code more predictable.

accrual

> I don't think it is normal to follow the flow assuming nothing has happened.

I think it is for situations where the programmer wants to check a child property but the parent object may be null. If the parent is expected to be null sometimes, the syntax lets the programmer express "try to get this value, but if we can't then move on" without the boilerplate of explicitly checking null (which may be a better pattern in some cases).

It's sort of like saying:

- Get the value if you can, else move on. We know it might not be there and it's not a big deal.

v.s.

- The value may not be there, explicitly check and handle it because it should not be null.

electroly

That's already the case for the null coalescing operator when it ends in a method call: the method call is skipped if the base is null. For instance, we can invoke event handlers with "myEvent?.Invoke(...);" and the call will be skipped if there are no event handlers registered, and this is the canonical way to do it.

cjbgkagh

It’s for the use case where they’d skip it anyway so that would be intended behavior.