Why don’t nullable relational operators return bool? instead of bool?

Avatar

Q: Why don’t nullable relational operators return “bool?” instead of “bool“?

Nullable types are a new feature of C# 2.0.

When dealing with nullable types, if you write the following:

int? i = 15;
int? j = 16;

the type of

i == j

is a normal bool, rather than a bool? (ie nullable bool). Why?

A: In our initial designs, we spent a fair amount of time discussing what the behavior should be here, and how we should cross over from the three-valued nullable world to the two-valued “normal C#“ world.

Consider the following method:

void Process(int? p)
{
    if (p == null)
    {
        // do some processing…
    }
}

This seems like a very natural thing for a C# user to want to write. But if equality is three-valued, comparing anything to null always returns a null value (ie null isn’t equal to anything), and therefore such a comparison can never succeed. Instead, the user would have to write:

if (!p.HasValue)

or something similar. We decided that the value of having a model that was consistent with the way users were used to dealing with reference null was pretty high, and therefore decided to make the relational operators return bool.

Avatar

Follow    

No Comments.