Skip to content
  • Categories
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
  • World
  • Users
  • Groups
Skins
  • Light
  • Cerulean
  • Cosmo
  • Flatly
  • Journal
  • Litera
  • Lumen
  • Lux
  • Materia
  • Minty
  • Morph
  • Pulse
  • Sandstone
  • Simplex
  • Sketchy
  • Spacelab
  • United
  • Yeti
  • Zephyr
  • Dark
  • Cyborg
  • Darkly
  • Quartz
  • Slate
  • Solar
  • Superhero
  • Vapor

  • Default (No Skin)
  • No Skin
Collapse
Code Project
  1. Home
  2. The Lounge
  3. Method chaining with short-circuit parameter evaluation

Method chaining with short-circuit parameter evaluation

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved The Lounge
csharpc++phpcomdesign
59 Posts 38 Posters 1 Views 1 Watching
  • Oldest to Newest
  • Newest to Oldest
  • Most Votes
Reply
  • Reply as topic
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • A AspDotNetDev

    There are a few ways you could do this, but one thing I've been meaning to write a tip/trick on (as soon as I figure out how it can be done) is the expression tree approach. You'd do this:

    var result = SafeChain(A.b.c.d.e.f.g.h.i.j.k);

    The parameter would be passed as an expression tree, which would then be evaluated in steps, making sure to check for nulls along the way. The first null would cause null to be returned, otherwise the result value would be returned. I imagine you could use the same approach with your method chaining / expression trees.

    Thou mewling ill-breeding pignut!

    S Offline
    S Offline
    szukuro
    wrote on last edited by
    #31

    Actually to be passed as an expresion tree you'd have to write:

    var result = SafeChain(**() =>**A.b.c.d.e.f.g.h.i.j.k);

    But I agree that this is the way to do it.

    1 Reply Last reply
    0
    • C Chris Maunder

      I am testing several depths of properties in an object to make sure they are safe before I call them:

      Test.NotNull(myObject);
      if (myObject != null)
      {
      Test.NotNull(myObject.MyProperty);
      if (myObject.MyProperty != null)
      Test.IsPositive(myObject.MyProperty.Id);
      ...
      }

      I was thinking it would be really cool to be able to do

      Test.NotNull(myObject).NotNull(myObject.MyProperty).IsPositive(myObject.MyProperty.Id);

      but obviously if myObject == null then we have a runtime null ref error because, regardless of what the NotNull method returns as part of the chaining, myObject is still null. So this got me thinking: You can do

      if (myObject != null && myObject.MyProperty != null)

      because of short circuit boolean evaluation in C#, but I was wondering, with my fairly mainstream experience in languages, if there are languages out there that would allow chaining of methods with short circuit evaluation. Essentially you'd have to have the input parameter be resolved after the method was called in order to have the method be able to say "I don't need the input parameter, please just ignore it". Has anyone heard of this? Would it open up a World Of Pain when it comes to debugging? Would it be useful? Am I procrastinating? --- Update: and it turns out this leads into a great discussion of extension methods. See The Maybe Monad[^] and Chained null checks and the Maybe monad[^] for two ways of achieving this. Once you've done that, debate the correctness of extension methods that are able by design to operate on a null references. I will be over there looking for new, shiny, distracting things.

      cheers, Chris Maunder The Code Project | Co-founder Microsoft C++ MVP

      B Offline
      B Offline
      Brisingr Aerowing
      wrote on last edited by
      #32

      public static U NotNull<T, U>(this T myObject, Expression<Func<T, U>> expression) where U : class
      {

      if (myObject == null)
      {
          return null;
      }
      
      try
      {
          var func = expression.Compile();
          return func(myObject);
      }
      catch (Exception)
      {
          return null;
      }
      

      }

      Based off of a suggestion above. I tested this, and it seems to work.

      Bob Dole

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

      :doh: 2.0.82.7292 SP6a

      1 Reply Last reply
      0
      • OriginalGriffO OriginalGriff

        Chris Maunder wrote:

        Am I procrastinating?

        Yep! But then, you probably don't want to fix RootAdmin - it's down according to http://www.downforeveryoneorjustme.com/rootadmin.com[^]

        If you get an email telling you that you can catch Swine Flu from tinned pork then just delete it. It's Spam.

        A Offline
        A Offline
        Andrew Rissing
        wrote on last edited by
        #33

        Maybe this IS the fix for the site.

        1 Reply Last reply
        0
        • S szukuro

          In C# you can implement this k<ind of chaining using extension methods and expressions trees. The extension method (somewhat combined version of the two above):

              public static U NotNull(this T myObject, Expression expression) 
                  where U : class
              {
                  if (myObject == null)
                      return null;
                  else
                  {
                     var func = expression.Compile();
                      return func();
                  }
              }
          

          Usage (returns either null if there's a null in the chain, or the value of MySubProperty, with almost the same syntax as above):

          var value = myObject.NotNull(() => myObject.MyProperty).NotNull(() => myProperty.MySubProperty);

          The only downside I found that in this case you have to declare a variable of type MyProperty for use in the second lambda expression. Maybe there's a way around it, but I didn't manage to find one as of yet. That can be changed though if the input remains myObject and the expression consists of the full path i. e. () => myObject.MyProperty.MySubProperty.

          B Offline
          B Offline
          Brisingr Aerowing
          wrote on last edited by
          #34

          I figured out something that works. See my message below. It is based off of yours, with an extra parameter for the expression.

          Bob Dole

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

          :doh: 2.0.82.7292 SP6a

          1 Reply Last reply
          0
          • C Chris Maunder

            I am testing several depths of properties in an object to make sure they are safe before I call them:

            Test.NotNull(myObject);
            if (myObject != null)
            {
            Test.NotNull(myObject.MyProperty);
            if (myObject.MyProperty != null)
            Test.IsPositive(myObject.MyProperty.Id);
            ...
            }

            I was thinking it would be really cool to be able to do

            Test.NotNull(myObject).NotNull(myObject.MyProperty).IsPositive(myObject.MyProperty.Id);

            but obviously if myObject == null then we have a runtime null ref error because, regardless of what the NotNull method returns as part of the chaining, myObject is still null. So this got me thinking: You can do

            if (myObject != null && myObject.MyProperty != null)

            because of short circuit boolean evaluation in C#, but I was wondering, with my fairly mainstream experience in languages, if there are languages out there that would allow chaining of methods with short circuit evaluation. Essentially you'd have to have the input parameter be resolved after the method was called in order to have the method be able to say "I don't need the input parameter, please just ignore it". Has anyone heard of this? Would it open up a World Of Pain when it comes to debugging? Would it be useful? Am I procrastinating? --- Update: and it turns out this leads into a great discussion of extension methods. See The Maybe Monad[^] and Chained null checks and the Maybe monad[^] for two ways of achieving this. Once you've done that, debate the correctness of extension methods that are able by design to operate on a null references. I will be over there looking for new, shiny, distracting things.

            cheers, Chris Maunder The Code Project | Co-founder Microsoft C++ MVP

            Richard DeemingR Offline
            Richard DeemingR Offline
            Richard Deeming
            wrote on last edited by
            #35

            If only there was some sort of site where people could write articles on exactly this issue[^]! ;P


            "These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined." - Homer

            "These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined" - Homer

            A J C 3 Replies Last reply
            0
            • N NormDroid

              If voting was available, I would of shot you a 5, but alas.....

              Software Kinetics - Dependable Software news

              P Offline
              P Offline
              Paul Conrad
              wrote on last edited by
              #36

              You could just toss a :thumbsup: in place of a 5 vote.

              "I've seen more information on a frickin' sticky note!" - Dave Kreskowiak

              N 1 Reply Last reply
              0
              • C Chris Maunder

                I am testing several depths of properties in an object to make sure they are safe before I call them:

                Test.NotNull(myObject);
                if (myObject != null)
                {
                Test.NotNull(myObject.MyProperty);
                if (myObject.MyProperty != null)
                Test.IsPositive(myObject.MyProperty.Id);
                ...
                }

                I was thinking it would be really cool to be able to do

                Test.NotNull(myObject).NotNull(myObject.MyProperty).IsPositive(myObject.MyProperty.Id);

                but obviously if myObject == null then we have a runtime null ref error because, regardless of what the NotNull method returns as part of the chaining, myObject is still null. So this got me thinking: You can do

                if (myObject != null && myObject.MyProperty != null)

                because of short circuit boolean evaluation in C#, but I was wondering, with my fairly mainstream experience in languages, if there are languages out there that would allow chaining of methods with short circuit evaluation. Essentially you'd have to have the input parameter be resolved after the method was called in order to have the method be able to say "I don't need the input parameter, please just ignore it". Has anyone heard of this? Would it open up a World Of Pain when it comes to debugging? Would it be useful? Am I procrastinating? --- Update: and it turns out this leads into a great discussion of extension methods. See The Maybe Monad[^] and Chained null checks and the Maybe monad[^] for two ways of achieving this. Once you've done that, debate the correctness of extension methods that are able by design to operate on a null references. I will be over there looking for new, shiny, distracting things.

                cheers, Chris Maunder The Code Project | Co-founder Microsoft C++ MVP

                S Offline
                S Offline
                Septimus Hedgehog
                wrote on last edited by
                #37

                Have you looked at this CP article by Dimitri Nesteruk[^] It looks very useful.

                "I do not have to forgive my enemies, I have had them all shot." — Ramón Maria Narváez (1800-68). "I don't need to shoot my enemies, I don't have any." - Me (2012).

                A 1 Reply Last reply
                0
                • S Septimus Hedgehog

                  Have you looked at this CP article by Dimitri Nesteruk[^] It looks very useful.

                  "I do not have to forgive my enemies, I have had them all shot." — Ramón Maria Narváez (1800-68). "I don't need to shoot my enemies, I don't have any." - Me (2012).

                  A Offline
                  A Offline
                  AspDotNetDev
                  wrote on last edited by
                  #38

                  You were beat to the punch. :)

                  Thou mewling ill-breeding pignut!

                  S 1 Reply Last reply
                  0
                  • Richard DeemingR Richard Deeming

                    If only there was some sort of site where people could write articles on exactly this issue[^]! ;P


                    "These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined." - Homer

                    A Offline
                    A Offline
                    AspDotNetDev
                    wrote on last edited by
                    #39

                    Yes! :thumbsup:

                    Thou mewling ill-breeding pignut!

                    1 Reply Last reply
                    0
                    • C Chris Maunder

                      I am testing several depths of properties in an object to make sure they are safe before I call them:

                      Test.NotNull(myObject);
                      if (myObject != null)
                      {
                      Test.NotNull(myObject.MyProperty);
                      if (myObject.MyProperty != null)
                      Test.IsPositive(myObject.MyProperty.Id);
                      ...
                      }

                      I was thinking it would be really cool to be able to do

                      Test.NotNull(myObject).NotNull(myObject.MyProperty).IsPositive(myObject.MyProperty.Id);

                      but obviously if myObject == null then we have a runtime null ref error because, regardless of what the NotNull method returns as part of the chaining, myObject is still null. So this got me thinking: You can do

                      if (myObject != null && myObject.MyProperty != null)

                      because of short circuit boolean evaluation in C#, but I was wondering, with my fairly mainstream experience in languages, if there are languages out there that would allow chaining of methods with short circuit evaluation. Essentially you'd have to have the input parameter be resolved after the method was called in order to have the method be able to say "I don't need the input parameter, please just ignore it". Has anyone heard of this? Would it open up a World Of Pain when it comes to debugging? Would it be useful? Am I procrastinating? --- Update: and it turns out this leads into a great discussion of extension methods. See The Maybe Monad[^] and Chained null checks and the Maybe monad[^] for two ways of achieving this. Once you've done that, debate the correctness of extension methods that are able by design to operate on a null references. I will be over there looking for new, shiny, distracting things.

                      cheers, Chris Maunder The Code Project | Co-founder Microsoft C++ MVP

                      G Offline
                      G Offline
                      Gary Wheeler
                      wrote on last edited by
                      #40

                      In C++ you could do this with an 'instance' call like this:

                      if (this != NULL)
                      {
                      return this->real_stuff;
                      }
                      else
                      {
                      return default_stuff;
                      }

                      As others have mentioned, in C# you can do this with extension methods:

                      namespace Test
                      {
                      public class Widget
                      {
                      }
                      public static class WidgetExtensions
                      {
                      static public void Method(this Widget _this)
                      {
                      if (_this != null)
                      {
                      Console.WriteLine("real widget");
                      }
                      else
                      {
                      Console.WriteLine("null widget");
                      }
                      }
                      }
                      class Program
                      {
                      static void Main(string[] args)
                      {
                      Widget widget = null;

                              widget.Method();
                              
                              widget = new Widget();
                              
                              widget.Method();
                          }
                      }
                      

                      }

                      results in the output

                      null widget
                      real widget

                      Software Zen: delete this;

                      1 Reply Last reply
                      0
                      • Richard DeemingR Richard Deeming

                        If only there was some sort of site where people could write articles on exactly this issue[^]! ;P


                        "These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined." - Homer

                        J Offline
                        J Offline
                        Jorgen Andersson
                        wrote on last edited by
                        #41

                        That settles it for me, I want voting back. :thumbsup:

                        People say nothing is impossible, but I do nothing every day.

                        1 Reply Last reply
                        0
                        • L Lost User

                          Or a decorator, preferably combined with the NullObject-pattern :)

                          Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^] They hate us for our freedom![^]

                          J Offline
                          J Offline
                          Jorgen Andersson
                          wrote on last edited by
                          #42

                          System.DBNull is an example of the pattern. And I can't describe in words how much I dislike it.

                          People say nothing is impossible, but I do nothing every day.

                          1 Reply Last reply
                          0
                          • A AspDotNetDev

                            You were beat to the punch. :)

                            Thou mewling ill-breeding pignut!

                            S Offline
                            S Offline
                            Septimus Hedgehog
                            wrote on last edited by
                            #43

                            So I was. Great minds think alike but in my case I'll pass up on the citation. ;) Hopefully it'll convince Muppet Maunder to read it and see if helps him.

                            "I do not have to forgive my enemies, I have had them all shot." — Ramón Maria Narváez (1800-68). "I don't need to shoot my enemies, I don't have any." - Me (2012).

                            1 Reply Last reply
                            0
                            • Richard DeemingR Richard Deeming

                              If only there was some sort of site where people could write articles on exactly this issue[^]! ;P


                              "These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined." - Homer

                              C Offline
                              C Offline
                              Chris Maunder
                              wrote on last edited by
                              #44

                              I am humbled and ashamed. And have just found an endless opportunity for way, way more procrastination.

                              cheers, Chris Maunder The Code Project | Co-founder Microsoft C++ MVP

                              1 Reply Last reply
                              0
                              • P Pete OHanlon

                                There is a way that you could do this, but it would be much more trouble than it was worth, and it would definitely open up a whole world of hurt. Effectively, what would need to be implemented is an IL rewriter to manage and rewrite the chain internally. Then you could create a fluid interface that would need to be recognised as the item that needs rewriting.

                                *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

                                C Offline
                                C Offline
                                Chris Maunder
                                wrote on last edited by
                                #45

                                I respect a man who prefers power drills and small explosives where others would wimp out and use tweezers. :thumbsup:

                                cheers, Chris Maunder The Code Project | Co-founder Microsoft C++ MVP

                                P 1 Reply Last reply
                                0
                                • N Nemanja Trifunovic

                                  Out of curiosity, what would you do in the else section of such a call?

                                  utf8-cpp

                                  C Offline
                                  C Offline
                                  Chris Maunder
                                  wrote on last edited by
                                  #46

                                  Else? There is no else. Just blindly plow on!

                                  cheers, Chris Maunder The Code Project | Co-founder Microsoft C++ MVP

                                  1 Reply Last reply
                                  0
                                  • C Chris Maunder

                                    I respect a man who prefers power drills and small explosives where others would wimp out and use tweezers. :thumbsup:

                                    cheers, Chris Maunder The Code Project | Co-founder Microsoft C++ MVP

                                    P Offline
                                    P Offline
                                    Pete OHanlon
                                    wrote on last edited by
                                    #47

                                    When I get the chance, I may just have a go at it. Need some free time first.

                                    *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

                                    1 Reply Last reply
                                    0
                                    • C Chris Maunder

                                      I am testing several depths of properties in an object to make sure they are safe before I call them:

                                      Test.NotNull(myObject);
                                      if (myObject != null)
                                      {
                                      Test.NotNull(myObject.MyProperty);
                                      if (myObject.MyProperty != null)
                                      Test.IsPositive(myObject.MyProperty.Id);
                                      ...
                                      }

                                      I was thinking it would be really cool to be able to do

                                      Test.NotNull(myObject).NotNull(myObject.MyProperty).IsPositive(myObject.MyProperty.Id);

                                      but obviously if myObject == null then we have a runtime null ref error because, regardless of what the NotNull method returns as part of the chaining, myObject is still null. So this got me thinking: You can do

                                      if (myObject != null && myObject.MyProperty != null)

                                      because of short circuit boolean evaluation in C#, but I was wondering, with my fairly mainstream experience in languages, if there are languages out there that would allow chaining of methods with short circuit evaluation. Essentially you'd have to have the input parameter be resolved after the method was called in order to have the method be able to say "I don't need the input parameter, please just ignore it". Has anyone heard of this? Would it open up a World Of Pain when it comes to debugging? Would it be useful? Am I procrastinating? --- Update: and it turns out this leads into a great discussion of extension methods. See The Maybe Monad[^] and Chained null checks and the Maybe monad[^] for two ways of achieving this. Once you've done that, debate the correctness of extension methods that are able by design to operate on a null references. I will be over there looking for new, shiny, distracting things.

                                      cheers, Chris Maunder The Code Project | Co-founder Microsoft C++ MVP

                                      C Offline
                                      C Offline
                                      CodeHawkz
                                      wrote on last edited by
                                      #48

                                      The first code block doesn't make any sense to me but this line

                                      var result = Test.NotNull(myObject).NotNull(myObject.MyProperty).IsPositive(myObject.MyProperty.Id);

                                      can be represented like this, can't you?

                                      var result = (myObject == null ? false: myObject.MyProperty == null ? false : IsPositive(myObject.MyProperty.Id);

                                      Just bouncing off an idea :) P.S. You can do it much simpler by using exceptions, I believe Cheers

                                      1 Reply Last reply
                                      0
                                      • P Paul Conrad

                                        You could just toss a :thumbsup: in place of a 5 vote.

                                        "I've seen more information on a frickin' sticky note!" - Dave Kreskowiak

                                        N Offline
                                        N Offline
                                        NormDroid
                                        wrote on last edited by
                                        #49

                                        Aye :thumbsup:

                                        Software Kinetics - Dependable Software news

                                        1 Reply Last reply
                                        0
                                        • C Chris Maunder

                                          I am testing several depths of properties in an object to make sure they are safe before I call them:

                                          Test.NotNull(myObject);
                                          if (myObject != null)
                                          {
                                          Test.NotNull(myObject.MyProperty);
                                          if (myObject.MyProperty != null)
                                          Test.IsPositive(myObject.MyProperty.Id);
                                          ...
                                          }

                                          I was thinking it would be really cool to be able to do

                                          Test.NotNull(myObject).NotNull(myObject.MyProperty).IsPositive(myObject.MyProperty.Id);

                                          but obviously if myObject == null then we have a runtime null ref error because, regardless of what the NotNull method returns as part of the chaining, myObject is still null. So this got me thinking: You can do

                                          if (myObject != null && myObject.MyProperty != null)

                                          because of short circuit boolean evaluation in C#, but I was wondering, with my fairly mainstream experience in languages, if there are languages out there that would allow chaining of methods with short circuit evaluation. Essentially you'd have to have the input parameter be resolved after the method was called in order to have the method be able to say "I don't need the input parameter, please just ignore it". Has anyone heard of this? Would it open up a World Of Pain when it comes to debugging? Would it be useful? Am I procrastinating? --- Update: and it turns out this leads into a great discussion of extension methods. See The Maybe Monad[^] and Chained null checks and the Maybe monad[^] for two ways of achieving this. Once you've done that, debate the correctness of extension methods that are able by design to operate on a null references. I will be over there looking for new, shiny, distracting things.

                                          cheers, Chris Maunder The Code Project | Co-founder Microsoft C++ MVP

                                          E Offline
                                          E Offline
                                          englebart
                                          wrote on last edited by
                                          #50

                                          Would the C# ?? operator help you?
                                          Would that do what you want? It definitely saves typing.
                                          http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms173224.aspx

                                          1 Reply Last reply
                                          0
                                          Reply
                                          • Reply as topic
                                          Log in to reply
                                          • Oldest to Newest
                                          • Newest to Oldest
                                          • Most Votes


                                          • Login

                                          • Don't have an account? Register

                                          • Login or register to search.
                                          • First post
                                            Last post
                                          0
                                          • Categories
                                          • Recent
                                          • Tags
                                          • Popular
                                          • World
                                          • Users
                                          • Groups