Well, as C# advances, some features are been more simplified inside the language. One common problem that beginners programmers have is how to deal with nullable variables.
In the first versions of C# language, validate null values were very explicity when I was coding, eg...
public static void Main()
{
string Name = null;
if(Name == null)
throw new NullReferenceException
("Error, the name is null");
}
After version 4.0 of .Net Framework, C# has gain some other interesting options to use. eg...
public static void Main()
{
//Using ?? Operator
string Name = null ?? "Undefined";
Console.WriteLine(Name);
Name = null;
//Using String Extension Mehtods
if(String.IsNullOrEmpty(Name))
throw new NullReferenceException
("Error, the name is null or Empty");
}
But now with C# 9.0, I can simplify all of this with the !! Operator like:
public static void Main()
{
string Name = null;
ManipulateString(Name);
OtherManipulateString(Name)
}
//Using new ! Operator to throw exception
public static string ManipulateString(string s!)
{
return s + " is a Valid string";
}
//Using new !! Operator to substitute null to other things like "" (probably)
public static string OtherManipulateString(string s!!)
{
return s + " is a Valid string";
}
although it is too early to validate whether it will be interesting to use this operator, in fact, it seems an interesting option to consider, despite not making it so explicit in the code, the economy of lines of code may be surprising.
Useful links:
http://www.macoratti.net/20/02/c_versao9.htm
https://www.infoq.com/news/2020/06/CSharp-9-Null/
https://www.c-sharpcorner.com/article/null-value-and-null-reference-handling-c-sharp6-to-c-sharp-9-new-features-day-1/
Top comments (2)
Nice 😄 , But I think its not readable.
== null is better than s!Yeah, I think that == suits better for conditionals or for Object construction I guess, but to organize methods reducing the number of lines of code, plus the validation implicit makes
Method(string s!) better than Method(string? s)...//string validationBut I'm certainly need test this more clearly 😄