alt Hacker NewsIsn'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.
Replies
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.
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.
It’s for the use case where they’d skip it anyway so that would be intended behavior.
> 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.
It kind of is more confusing because I always imagined the RHS to be evaluated first in an assignment, before the target is evaluated.
The motivation is that you don't want the side effects in some cases like GetNextId() but I think it's still strange. I hacven't thought deeply about it but i _think_ I'd rather keep the intuitive right-hand-first evaluation and explicitly have to use if (..) in case I have a RHS whose side effects I need to avoid when discarded.