It does what now?

[User 8661269]

private void toggleSwitch(bool? visible = false)
{
if (visible.Value) toggleState(visible);
}

[Brisingr Aerowing]

:doh: Well, it is completely redundant, and why is it Nullable? I guess the developer had a case of hypocaffenia and encountered a '404: Brain Not Found' error.

Bob Dole

The internet is a great way to get on the net.

:doh: 2.0.82.7292 SP6a

[Brady Kelly]

Zac Greve wrote:

hypocaffenia

Love it! :cool:

[Pete OHanlon]

It's entirely possible that they would pass null into toggleSwitch. Of course, it should be HasValue rather than Value.

*pre-emptive celebratory nipple tassle jiggle* - Sean Ewington

"Mind bleach! Send me mind bleach!" - Nagy Vilmos

CodeStash - Online Snippet Management | My blog | MoXAML PowerToys | Mole 2010 - debugging made easier

[kdmote]

It's not redundant at all. But it probably doesn't function the way the author intended. What the author probably had in mind was:

private void toggleSwitch(bool? visible = false)
{
toggleState(visible);
}

...which wraps a non-nullable toggle function with a nullable one. But as it is written, the functionality that this method offers is actually: 1. If user passes toggleSwitch(True), then toggleState is toggled. BUT, 2. If user passes toggleSwitch(False) or toggleSwitch(), then NOTHING happens (because of the test).

[Marius Bancila]

Congrats. You have successfully installed bugs! :)

[onelopez]

Granted you don't pass a null value, the component / control will always remain in

.Visible = false

But if false is passed, there's nothing there that will turn the control /component back on again.

[Vladimir Svyatski]

It throws an exception when visible == null.