CODEWITHSUNDEEP
c#theoryconditional-operator
Johan Hjalmarsson
Johan Hjalmarsson

Reputation: 3493

? operator without else-part

I use C# ? operator when I have if-statements that affects one row and it's all good. But lets say I have this code (using classic if-statements):

if(someStatement)
{
    someBool = true;  //someBools value is unknown
}
else
{
    //Do nothing
}

This can be achieved on a one-liner by doing:

someBool = (someStatement) ? true : someBool;

But why can't I do something like this:

someBool = (someStatement) ? true : ;
//or possibly
someBool = (someStatement) ? true;

Is this possible in some way? If it is, is there any benefits of using one method over the other? And if not, why shouldn't you be able to do it?

Upvotes: 50

Views: 76370

Answers (4)

Lod
Lod

Reputation: 769

Not the exact same example as the OP's so might not be valid to the specific question.

I might not have fully understood the question as it seems more complicated case than my simple use with colors.

But for my use case this solution worked.

Apologies if it does not solve the OP's specific use case.

My case was:

if ( a ) colorRed;

else if ( b ) colorBlue;

else // no color

[1]

I first tested:

( ( conditionA ) ? colorRed : ( conditionB ) ? colorBlue : false )

It throws this error:

Type of conditional expression cannot be determined because there is no implicit conversion between 'System.Windows.Media.Brush' and 'bool' CS0173 247 81

[2]

Testing then as suggested here: https://stackoverflow.com/a/6208135/10789707

( ( conditionA ) ? colorRed : ( conditionB ) ? colorBlue : () )

It throws these errors:

Invalid expression term ')' CS1525 247 97

) expected CS1026 247 100

[3]

Finally tested this:

( ( conditionA ) ? colorRed : ( conditionB ) ? colorBlue : null )

No error. With needed output.

[4]

But I found out the same output is obtained without null too for my use case after all.

( ( conditionA ) ? colorRed : colorBlue )

[3] might have some use to some scenarios when the else clause does make a difference in the output.

Upvotes: 0

Alex from Jitbit
Alex from Jitbit

Reputation: 60566

Some background: we use constructs like this a lot:

sql = "SELECT x FROM table WHERE Y " + (condition ? " AND Column = 1" : "");

We also use constructs like this in Razor views

<div class='someclass @(condition ? "anotherclass" : "")'></div>

The : "" is pretty annoying so we built an extension method

public static T Then<T>(this bool value, T result)
{
    return value ? result : default(T);
}

Usage:

<div class='someclass @condition.Then("anotherclass")'></div>

taken from here

Upvotes: 4

Weeble
Weeble

Reputation: 17890

You can do:

someBool = (someStatement) ? true : someBool;

I don't think that gains you a lot of clarity over:

if (someStatement)
{
    someBool = true;
}

But it really seems to be a matter of taste. I wouldn't say either is clearly bad, but the former is uncommon, so I'd probably avoid it.

You ask why you can't use the operator like this:

someBool = (someStatement) ? true : ;

This would be a very big language change! Bear in mind that an assignment looks like this:

<location> = <expression>;

The expression is evaluated to give some value, and that value is stored in location. (Depending on whether location is a variable, property, field or indexing expression the "storing" operation could be quite different.)

Here you're proposing that the value of the expression on the right, in addition to its normal values, can be a "no-change" value, which has the special behaviour that when you use it in an assignment statement it causes no store operation to occur. That's different from any other normal value, and potentially surprising. But what would it mean if you used it in other places?

// Does this call DoSomething when cond is false?
// If so, what value is passed to it?
someObject.DoSomething(cond?x:);

// What happens here if cond is false? Does it cancel
// the entire assignment?
int x = 77 + (cond?2:) * 3 - 4;

// If cond is false, are methods F1 and F2 called or not called?
int x = F1() + (cond?2:) + F2();

// What does this do? Does it skip the return if cond is false?
return (cond?2:);

I think you'd find it extremely hard to come up with sensible, intuitive and consistent behaviour for the operator in all these circumstances, and I don't think it would be useful anywhere other than in a simple assignment. It just doesn't fit with the rest of the language - including it would make the language harder to learn, read, understand, implement and explain. It's just not worth it for a tiny bit of conciseness.

Upvotes: 44

Jon Skeet
Jon Skeet

Reputation: 1499950

Basically, you're trying to use the conditional operator for something that it's not designed for.

It's not meant to optionally take some action... it's meant to evaluate one expression or another, and that be the result of the expression.

If you only want to perform an action when some condition is met, use an if statement - that's precisely what it's there for.

In your example, you could use:

// Renamed someStatement to someCondition for clarity
someBool |= someCondition;

or

someBool = someCondition ? true : someBool;

... in other words "use the existing value unless someCondition is true... but personally, I think the original if statement is clearer.

Upvotes: 21

Related Questions