null coalescing operator is right associative, which means an expression of the form
first ?? second ??third
is evaluated as
first ?? (second ?? third)
Based on the above rule, I think the following translation is not correct.
From:
Address contact = user.ContactAddress; if (contact == null) { contact = order.ShippingAddress; if (contact == null) { contact = user.BillingAddress; } }
To:
Address contact = user.ContactAddress ?? order.ShippingAddress ?? user.BillingAddress;
Instead, I think the following is right one (Please correct me if I am wrong)
Address contact = (user.ContactAddress ?? order.ShippingAddress) ?? user.BillingAddress;
The null-coalescing operator ?? returns the value of its left-hand operand if it isn't null ; otherwise, it evaluates the right-hand operand and returns its result.
The nullish coalescing operator ( ?? ) is a logical operator that returns its right-hand side operand when its left-hand side operand is null or undefined , and otherwise returns its left-hand side operand.
In cases where a statement could return null, the null-coalescing operator can be used to ensure a reasonable value gets returned. This code returns the name of an item or the default name if the item is null. As you can see, this operator is a handy tool when working with the null-conditional operator.
The spec is actually self-contradictory on this one.
Section 7.13 of the C# 4 spec states:
The null coalescing operator is right-associative, meaning that operations are grouped from right to left. For example, an expression of the form
a ?? b ?? c
is evaluated asa ?? (b ?? c)
.
On the other hand, as has been pointed out, 7.3.1 claims that:
Except for the assignment operators, all binary operators are left-associative
I entirely agree that for simple cases it doesn't matter how you do the grouping... but there may be cases where it really matters due to implicit type conversions doing interesting things if the operands have different types.
I'll consider it further, ping Mads and Eric, and add an erratum for the relevant section of C# in Depth (which inspired this question).
EDIT: Okay, I've now got an example where it does matter... and the null coalescing operator is definitely right-associative, at least in the MS C# 4 compiler. Code:
using System; public struct Foo { public static implicit operator Bar(Foo input) { Console.WriteLine("Foo to Bar"); return new Bar(); } public static implicit operator Baz(Foo input) { Console.WriteLine("Foo to Baz"); return new Baz(); } } public struct Bar { public static implicit operator Baz(Bar input) { Console.WriteLine("Bar to Baz"); return new Baz(); } } public struct Baz { } class Test { static void Main() { Foo? x = new Foo(); Bar? y = new Bar(); Baz? z = new Baz(); Console.WriteLine("Unbracketed:"); Baz? a = x ?? y ?? z; Console.WriteLine("Grouped to the left:"); Baz? b = (x ?? y) ?? z; Console.WriteLine("Grouped to the right:"); Baz? c = x ?? (y ?? z); } }
Output:
Unbracketed: Foo to Baz Grouped to the left: Foo to Bar Foo to Bar Bar to Baz Grouped to the right: Foo to Baz
In other words,
x ?? y ?? z
behaves the same as
x ?? (y ?? z)
but not the same as
(x ?? y) ?? z
I'm not currently sure why there are two conversions from Foo to Bar when using (x ?? y) ?? z
- I need to check that out more carefully...
EDIT: I now have another question to cover the double conversion...
If you love us? You can donate to us via Paypal or buy me a coffee so we can maintain and grow! Thank you!
Donate Us With