C# 6.0 null-conditional operator in if statements

Question

Can someone please explain the logic of the null-conditional operator in if statements?

Imagine the following code

List<string> items = null;
if (items?.Count == 0)
{
    Console.WriteLine("error");
}
else
{
    Console.WriteLine("OK");
}

The above will print OK. Why does it compile when the next block would not?

if (items?.Any())    // won't compile but if (items?.Count() == 0) would
{
    ...
}

I am guessing the ?. will stop execution when null detected and the entire if is skipped but why is it not the case with "?.Any()"? Just because it's a method whereas "count" is a property?

And why does the Linq extension method Any() require an explicit conversion from Nullable to bool where Count() == 0 compiles with no conversion Nullable to int required?

There is an overload on == to lift the comparison and still return true/false, so the magic is in the == operator on Nullable<T>. If you try if (items?.Any() == true) it will compile. — Lasse V. Karlsen
– Lasse V. Karlsen, Commented May 6, 2021 at 10:18
Note that, in C# 9, you can write this as if (items is { Count: > 0 }). You may or may not find that clearer. — canton7
– canton7, Commented May 6, 2021 at 10:22

Franz Gleichmann · Accepted Answer · 2021-05-06 10:19:16Z

11

if items is null, then items?.Count is null, too.
and null == 0 is a comparison that results in false. so the if is happy.

but items?.Any() will also be null - and if(null) is invalid, because null is not a boolean, and cannot be converted to one.

so you simply have to provide a fallback boolean value:

if (items?.Any() ?? false) {

}

will do the trick

answered May 6, 2021 at 10:19

Franz Gleichmann

3,6104 gold badges25 silver badges30 bronze badges

Sign up to request clarification or add additional context in comments.

7 Comments

Hans Kilian Over a year ago

if (items?.Any() == true) is more readable I think

Franz Gleichmann Over a year ago

@HansKilian that's a matter of preference, i (obviously) root for the null coalesce operator. but it would be interesting to see if there's differences in performance.

Hans Kilian Over a year ago

Readability is generally more important than performance, I think. At least on the systems I work on. I leave performance to the compiler :) But you're right, of course, that what's more readable is a matter of preference.

canton7 Over a year ago

There's no difference in performance

canton7 Over a year ago

@David It's because both 0 and null can be converted to an int? (a nullable int).

|

Henk Holterman · Accepted Answer · 2021-05-06 10:40:42Z

7

Consider the null case.

In if (items?.Count == 0) that becomes if (null == 0) and that gives false.

But in if (items?.Any()) it becomes if (null) and that is invalid.

You can use if (items?.Any() == true) or if (items?.Any() ?? false) or something similar.

I notice that items.Count == 0 is an error but items == null returns Ok in your first example.
That is odd.

edited May 6, 2021 at 10:40

answered May 6, 2021 at 10:22

Henk Holterman

276k33 gold badges353 silver badges540 bronze badges

Collectives™ on Stack Overflow

C# 6.0 null-conditional operator in if statements

2 Answers 2

7 Comments

Comments

Your Answer

Hot Network Questions

Collectives™ on Stack Overflow

2 Answers 2

7 Comments

Comments

Your Answer

Sign up or log in

Post as a guest

Related