Method chaining with short-circuit parameter evaluation
-
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.
-
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 doif (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
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
-
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.
Maybe this IS the fix for the site.
-
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.
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
-
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 doif (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
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
-
If voting was available, I would of shot you a 5, but alas.....
Software Kinetics - Dependable Software news
You could just toss a :thumbsup: in place of a 5 vote.
"I've seen more information on a frickin' sticky note!" - Dave Kreskowiak
-
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 doif (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
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).
-
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).
You were beat to the punch. :)
-
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
Yes! :thumbsup:
-
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 doif (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
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 widgetSoftware Zen:
delete this;
-
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
That settles it for me, I want voting back. :thumbsup:
People say nothing is impossible, but I do nothing every day.
-
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![^]
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.
-
You were beat to the punch. :)
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).
-
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
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
-
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
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
-
Out of curiosity, what would you do in the
else
section of such a call?Else? There is no else. Just blindly plow on!
cheers, Chris Maunder The Code Project | Co-founder Microsoft C++ MVP
-
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
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
-
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 doif (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
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
-
You could just toss a :thumbsup: in place of a 5 vote.
"I've seen more information on a frickin' sticky note!" - Dave Kreskowiak
-
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 doif (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
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