Search Results

Search found 554 results on 23 pages for 'nullable'.

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

Page 1/23 | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

  • Nullable types and ?? operator C# [en-US]

    - by ruimachado
    Nullable types vs Non-nullable types   While developing our C# projects its frequent the null comparison operation to avoid null exceptions. This simple operation is mainly coded using the "var x = null" code example inside an if clause. However not all types of variables are nullable, which means that setting a variable to null is not allowed in every cases, it depends on what kind of type are you defining. But what if there was an extension to your non-nullable type that would convert your variable types to nullable? This extension really exists. As I said before in C# you have nullable types which represent all the values of an underlying type, and an additional null value and can be declared easily using "T?", where T is the type of the variable and for example the normal int type cannot be null, so its a non-nullable type, however if you define a "int?" your variable can be null, what you do is convert a non-nullable type to a nullable type. Example: int x=null;     Not allowed     int? x=null;   Allowed     While using nullable types you can check if a variable is null the same way you do it with nullable types:     But what about setting a default value when a certain variable is null?   In this cases the c# .net framework let you set a default value when you try to assign a nullable type to a non-nullable type, using the ?? operator. If you don't use this operator you can still catch the InvalidOperationException which is throw in this cases. For example  without the ?? operator :     Using the ?? operator your code becomes cleaner and more easy to read and you get a bonus, you can set a default value for multiple variables using the ?? in a chain set.     That’s it,   Thanks, Rui Machado rpmachado.wordpress.com

    Read the article

  • Nullable Enum nullable type question

    - by Michael Kniskern
    I get the following compilation error with the following source code: Compilation Error: Type of conditional expression cannot be determined because there is no implicit conversion between '' and 'MyEnum' Source Code public enum MyEnum { Value1, Value2, Value3 } public class MyClass { public MyClass() {} public MyEnum? MyClassEnum { get; set; } } public class Main() { object x = new object(); MyClass mc = new MyClass() { MyClassEnum = Convert.IsDBNull(x) : null ? (MyEnum) Enum.Parse(typeof(MyEnum), x.ToString(), true) }; } How can I resolve this error?

    Read the article

  • C#/.NET Little Wonders: The Nullable static class

    - by James Michael Hare
    Once again, in this series of posts I look at the parts of the .NET Framework that may seem trivial, but can help improve your code by making it easier to write and maintain. The index of all my past little wonders posts can be found here. Today we’re going to look at an interesting Little Wonder that can be used to mitigate what could be considered a Little Pitfall.  The Little Wonder we’ll be examining is the System.Nullable static class.  No, not the System.Nullable<T> class, but a static helper class that has one useful method in particular that we will examine… but first, let’s look at the Little Pitfall that makes this wonder so useful. Little Pitfall: Comparing nullable value types using <, >, <=, >= Examine this piece of code, without examining it too deeply, what’s your gut reaction as to the result? 1: int? x = null; 2:  3: if (x < 100) 4: { 5: Console.WriteLine("True, {0} is less than 100.", 6: x.HasValue ? x.ToString() : "null"); 7: } 8: else 9: { 10: Console.WriteLine("False, {0} is NOT less than 100.", 11: x.HasValue ? x.ToString() : "null"); 12: } Your gut would be to say true right?  It would seem to make sense that a null integer is less than the integer constant 100.  But the result is actually false!  The null value is not less than 100 according to the less-than operator. It looks even more outrageous when you consider this also evaluates to false: 1: int? x = null; 2:  3: if (x < int.MaxValue) 4: { 5: // ... 6: } So, are we saying that null is less than every valid int value?  If that were true, null should be less than int.MinValue, right?  Well… no: 1: int? x = null; 2:  3: // um... hold on here, x is NOT less than min value? 4: if (x < int.MinValue) 5: { 6: // ... 7: } So what’s going on here?  If we use greater than instead of less than, we see the same little dilemma: 1: int? x = null; 2:  3: // once again, null is not greater than anything either... 4: if (x > int.MinValue) 5: { 6: // ... 7: } It turns out that four of the comparison operators (<, <=, >, >=) are designed to return false anytime at least one of the arguments is null when comparing System.Nullable wrapped types that expose the comparison operators (short, int, float, double, DateTime, TimeSpan, etc.).  What’s even odder is that even though the two equality operators (== and !=) work correctly, >= and <= have the same issue as < and > and return false if both System.Nullable wrapped operator comparable types are null! 1: DateTime? x = null; 2: DateTime? y = null; 3:  4: if (x <= y) 5: { 6: Console.WriteLine("You'd think this is true, since both are null, but it's not."); 7: } 8: else 9: { 10: Console.WriteLine("It's false because <=, <, >, >= don't work on null."); 11: } To make matters even more confusing, take for example your usual check to see if something is less than, greater to, or equal: 1: int? x = null; 2: int? y = 100; 3:  4: if (x < y) 5: { 6: Console.WriteLine("X is less than Y"); 7: } 8: else if (x > y) 9: { 10: Console.WriteLine("X is greater than Y"); 11: } 12: else 13: { 14: // We fall into the "equals" assumption, but clearly null != 100! 15: Console.WriteLine("X is equal to Y"); 16: } Yes, this code outputs “X is equal to Y” because both the less-than and greater-than operators return false when a Nullable wrapped operator comparable type is null.  This violates a lot of our assumptions because we assume is something is not less than something, and it’s not greater than something, it must be equal.  So keep in mind, that the only two comparison operators that work on Nullable wrapped types where at least one is null are the equals (==) and not equals (!=) operators: 1: int? x = null; 2: int? y = 100; 3:  4: if (x == y) 5: { 6: Console.WriteLine("False, x is null, y is not."); 7: } 8:  9: if (x != y) 10: { 11: Console.WriteLine("True, x is null, y is not."); 12: } Solution: The Nullable static class So we’ve seen that <, <=, >, and >= have some interesting and perhaps unexpected behaviors that can trip up a novice developer who isn’t expecting the kinks that System.Nullable<T> types with comparison operators can throw.  How can we easily mitigate this? Well, obviously, you could do null checks before each check, but that starts to get ugly: 1: if (x.HasValue) 2: { 3: if (y.HasValue) 4: { 5: if (x < y) 6: { 7: Console.WriteLine("x < y"); 8: } 9: else if (x > y) 10: { 11: Console.WriteLine("x > y"); 12: } 13: else 14: { 15: Console.WriteLine("x == y"); 16: } 17: } 18: else 19: { 20: Console.WriteLine("x > y because y is null and x isn't"); 21: } 22: } 23: else if (y.HasValue) 24: { 25: Console.WriteLine("x < y because x is null and y isn't"); 26: } 27: else 28: { 29: Console.WriteLine("x == y because both are null"); 30: } Yes, we could probably simplify this logic a bit, but it’s still horrendous!  So what do we do if we want to consider null less than everything and be able to properly compare Nullable<T> wrapped value types? The key is the System.Nullable static class.  This class is a companion class to the System.Nullable<T> class and allows you to use a few helper methods for Nullable<T> wrapped types, including a static Compare<T>() method of the. What’s so big about the static Compare<T>() method?  It implements an IComparer compatible comparison on Nullable<T> types.  Why do we care?  Well, if you look at the MSDN description for how IComparer works, you’ll read: Comparing null with any type is allowed and does not generate an exception when using IComparable. When sorting, null is considered to be less than any other object. This is what we probably want!  We want null to be less than everything!  So now we can change our logic to use the Nullable.Compare<T>() static method: 1: int? x = null; 2: int? y = 100; 3:  4: if (Nullable.Compare(x, y) < 0) 5: { 6: // Yes! x is null, y is not, so x is less than y according to Compare(). 7: Console.WriteLine("x < y"); 8: } 9: else if (Nullable.Compare(x, y) > 0) 10: { 11: Console.WriteLine("x > y"); 12: } 13: else 14: { 15: Console.WriteLine("x == y"); 16: } Summary So, when doing math comparisons between two numeric values where one of them may be a null Nullable<T>, consider using the System.Nullable.Compare<T>() method instead of the comparison operators.  It will treat null less than any value, and will avoid logic consistency problems when relying on < returning false to indicate >= is true and so on. Tweet   Technorati Tags: C#,C-Sharp,.NET,Little Wonders,Little Pitfalls,Nulalble

    Read the article

  • Where in memory are stored nullable types?

    - by Ondrej Slinták
    This is maybe a follow up to question about nullable types. Where exactly are nullable value types (int?...) stored in memory? First I thought it's clear enough, as Nullable<T> is struct and those are value types. Then I found Jon Skeet's article "Memory in .NET", which says: Note that a value type variable can never have a value of null - it wouldn't make any sense, as null is a reference type concept, meaning "the value of this reference type variable isn't a reference to any object at all". I am little bit confused after reading this statement. So let's say I have int? a = null;. As int is normally a value type, is it stored somehow inside struct Nullable<T> in stack (I used "normally" because I don't know what happens with value type when it becomes nullable)? Or anything else happens here - perhaps in heap?

    Read the article

  • FluentNHibernate: Not.Nullable() doesn't affect output schema

    - by alex
    Hello I'm using fluent nhibernate v. 1.0.0.595. There is a class: public class Weight { public virtual int Id { get; set; } public virtual double Value { get; set; } } I want to map it on the following table: create table [Weight] ( WeightId INT IDENTITY NOT NULL, Weight DOUBLE not null, primary key (WeightId) ) Here is the map: public class WeightMap : ClassMap<Weight> { public WeightMap() { Table("[Weight]"); Id(x => x.Id, "WeightId"); Map(x => x.Value, "Weight").Not.Nullable(); } } The problem is that this mapping produces table with nullable Weight column: Weight DOUBLE null Not-nullable column is generated only with default convention for column name (i.e. Map(x = x.Value).Not.Nullable() instead of Map(x = x.Value, "Weight").Not.Nullable()), but in this case there will be Value column instead of Weight: create table [Weight] ( WeightId INT IDENTITY NOT NULL, Value DOUBLE not null, primary key (WeightId) ) I found similiar problem here: http://code.google.com/p/fluent-nhibernate/issues/detail?id=121, but seems like mentioned workaround with SetAttributeOnColumnElement("not-null", "true") is outdated. Does anybody encountered with this problem? Is there a way to specify named column as not-nullable?

    Read the article

  • How to compare nullable types?

    - by David_001
    I have a few places where I need to compare 2 (nullable) values, to see if they're the same. I think there should be something in the framework to support this, but can't find anything, so instead have the following: public static bool IsDifferentTo(this bool? x, bool? y) { return (x.HasValue != y.HasValue) ? true : x.HasValue && x.Value != y.Value; } Then, within code I have if (x.IsDifferentTo(y)) ... I then have similar methods for nullable ints, nullable doubles etc. Is there not an easier way to see if two nullable types are the same? Update: Turns out that the reason this method existed was because the code has been converted from VB.Net, where Nothing = Nothing returns false (compare to C# where null == null returns true). The VB.Net code should have used .Equals... instead.

    Read the article

  • Why shouldn't I always use nullable types in C#.

    - by Matthew Vines
    I've been searching for some good guidance on this since the concept was introduced in .net 2.0. Why would I ever want to use non-nullable data types in c#? (A better question is why wouldn't I choose nullable types by default, and only use non-nullable types when that explicitly makes sense.) Is there a 'significant' performance hit to choosing a nullable data type over its non-nullable peer? I much prefer to check my values against null instead of Guid.empty, string.empty, DateTime.MinValue,<= 0, etc, and to work with nullable types in general. And the only reason I don't choose nullable types more often is the itchy feeling in the back of my head that makes me feel like it's more than backwards compatibility that forces that extra '?' character to explicitly allow a null value. Is there anybody out there that always (most always) chooses nullable types rather than non-nullable types? Thanks for your time,

    Read the article

  • Nullable enum in html helper

    - by Fabien Piron
    I have a view model that contains enum with nullable type like this one : public StudyLevel? studyLevel { get; set; } I have made custom html helper to display a dropdownlist for rendering the enum into the view, the nullable case is displayed using <option value="null">No value</option> the problem is that when i submit the form modelstate give me the error : studylevel cannot be "null" . Could you suggest me any way to help me handle the nullable type in the view ?

    Read the article

  • Nullable<> as TModel for ViewPage

    - by Alexander Prokofyev
    What are the possible reasons what Nullable<> types are disallowed to be passed as TModel parameter of System.Web.Mvc.ViewPage<TModel> generic? This could be handy sometimes. In ASP.NET MVC source defined what TModel should be a class: public class ViewPage<TModel> : ViewPage where TModel : class but Nullable types are value types. Maybe definition could be less restrictive...

    Read the article

  • Having an issue with Nullable MySQL columns in SubSonic 3.0 templates

    - by omegawkd
    Looking at this line in the Settings.ttinclude string CheckNullable(Column col){ string result=""; if(col.IsNullable && col.SysType !="byte[]" && col.SysType !="string") result="?"; return result; } It describes how it determines if the column is nullable based on requirements and returns either "" or "?" to the generated code. Now I'm not too familiar with the ? nullable type operator but from what I can see a cast is required. For instance, if I have a nullable integer MySQL column and I generate the code using the default template files it returns a line similar to this: int? _User_ID; When trying to compile the project I get the error: Cannot implicitly convert type 'int?' to 'int'. An explicit conversion exists (are you missing a cast?) I checked teh Settings files for the other database types and they all seems to have the same routine. So my question is, is this behaviour expected or is this a bug? I need to solve it one way or the other before I can procede. Thanks for your help.

    Read the article

  • Order by nullable property simultaneously with ordering by not nullable property in HQL

    - by Episodex
    Hi, I have a table called Users in my database. Let's assume that User has only 3 properties int ID; string? Name; string Login; If user doesn't specify his name then Login is displayed. Otherwise Name is displayed. I wan't to get list of all users sorted by what is displayed. So if user specified Name, it is taken into consideration while sorting, otherwise his position on the list should be determined by Login. Eventually whole list should be ordered alphabetically. I hope I made myself clear... Is that possible to do in HQL?

    Read the article

  • How to parse a string into a nullable int in C# (.NET 3.5)

    - by Glenn Slaven
    I'm wanting to parse a string into a nullable int in C#. ie. I want to get back either the int value of the string or null if it can't be parsed. I was kind of hoping that this would work int? val = stringVal as int?; But that won't work, so the way I'm doing it now is I've written this extension method public static int? ParseNullableInt(this string value) { if (value == null || value.Trim() == string.Empty) { return null; } else { try { return int.Parse(value); } catch { return null; } } } Is there a better way of doing this? EDIT: Thanks for the TryParse suggestions, I did know about that, but it worked out about the same. I'm more interested in knowing if there is a built-in framework method that will parse directly into a nullable int?

    Read the article

  • Confusion about Nullable<T> constraints

    - by n535
    Greetings everybody. I am sorry, if this was already asked before (searched in vain) or is really very simple, but i just can't get it. The MSDN definition of a Nullable type, states, that it is defined in a following manner: [SerializableAttribute] public struct Nullable<T> where T : struct, new() So the question is quite straightforward: How is this definition possible? Or this is just a typo? Every value type already has a default constructor. Indeed, when i try to compile something like this, the compiler reasonably says, that it is illegal to apply both constraints at the same time, because the second one is implicitly included in a first one. Thanks in advance.

    Read the article

  • Are nullable types preferable to magic numbers?

    - by Matt H
    I have been having a little bit of a debate with a coworker lately. We are specifically using C#, but this could apply to any language with nullable types. Say for example you have a value that represents a maximum. However, this maximum value is optional. I argue that a nullable number would be preferable. My coworker favors the use of zero, citing precedent. Granted, things like network sockets have often used zero to represent an unlimited timeout. If I were to write code dealing with sockets today, I would personally use a nullable value, since I feel it would better represent the fact that there is NO timeout. Which representation is better? Both require a condition checking for the value meaning "none", but I believe that a nullable type conveys the intent a little bit better.

    Read the article

  • LINQ-to-SQL IN/Contains() for Nullable<T>

    - by Craig Walker
    I want to generate this SQL statement in LINQ: select * from Foo where Value in ( 1, 2, 3 ) The tricky bit seems to be that Value is a column that allows nulls. The equivalent LINQ code would seem to be: IEnumerable<Foo> foos = MyDataContext.Foos; IEnumerable<int> values = GetMyValues(); var myFoos = from foo in foos where values.Contains(foo.Value) select foo; This, of course, doesn't compile, since foo.Value is an int? and values is typed to int. I've tried this: IEnumerable<Foo> foos = MyDataContext.Foos; IEnumerable<int> values = GetMyValues(); IEnumerable<int?> nullables = values.Select( value => new Nullable<int>(value)); var myFoos = from foo in foos where nullables.Contains(foo.Value) select foo; ...and this: IEnumerable<Foo> foos = MyDataContext.Foos; IEnumerable<int> values = GetMyValues(); var myFoos = from foo in foos where values.Contains(foo.Value.Value) select foo; Both of these versions give me the results I expect, but they do not generate the SQL I want. It appears that they're generating full-table results and then doing the Contains() filtering in-memory (ie: in plain LINQ, without -to-SQL); there's no IN clause in the DataContext log. Is there a way to generate a SQL IN for Nullable types?

    Read the article

  • Nullable<T> as a parameter

    - by ferch
    I alredy have this: public static object GetDBValue(object ObjectEvaluated) { if (ObjectEvaluated == null) return DBNull.Value; else return ObjectEvaluated; } used like: List<SqlParameter> Params = new List<SqlParameter>(); Params.Add(new SqlParameter("@EntityType", GetDBValue(EntityType))); Now i wanted to keep the same interface but extend that to use it with nullable public static object GetDBValue(int? ObjectEvaluated) { if (ObjectEvaluated.HasValue) return ObjectEvaluated.Value; else return DBNull.Value; } public static object GetDBValue(DateTime? ObjectEvaluated) {...} but i want only 1 function GetDBValue for nullables. How do I do that and keep the call as is is? Is that possible at all? I can make it work like: public static object GetDBValue<T>(Nullable<T> ObjectEvaluated) where T : struct { if (ObjectEvaluated.HasValue) return ObjectEvaluated.Value; else return DBNull.Value; } But the call changes to: Params.Add(new SqlParameter("@EntityID ", GetDBValue<int>(EntityID)));

    Read the article

  • Setting Nullable Integer to String Containing Nothing yields 0

    - by Brian MacKay
    I've been pulling my hair out over some unexpected behavior from nullable integers. If I set an Integer to Nothing, it becomes Nothing as expected. If I set an Integer? to a String that is Nothing, it becomes 0! Of course I get this whether I explicitly cast the String to Integer? or not. I realize I could work around this pretty easily but I want to know what I'm missing. Dim NullString As String = Nothing Dim NullableInt As Integer? = CType(NullString, Integer?) 'Expected NullableInt to be Nothing, but it's 0! NullableInt = Nothing 'This works -- NullableInt now contains Nothing. How is this EDIT: Previously I had my code up here so without the explicit conversion to 'Integer?' and everyone seemed to be fixated on that. I want to be clear that this is not an issue that would have been caught by Option Strict On -- check out the accepted answer. This is a quirk of the string-to-integer conversion rules which predate nullable types, but still impact them.

    Read the article

  • Performance surprise with "as" and nullable types

    - by Jon Skeet
    I'm just revising chapter 4 of C# in Depth which deals with nullable types, and I'm adding a section about using the "as" operator, which allows you to write: object o = ...; int? x = o as int?; if (x.HasValue) { ... // Use x.Value in here } I thought this was really neat, and that it could improve performance over the C# 1 equivalent, using "is" followed by a cast - after all, this way we only need to ask for dynamic type checking once, and then a simple value check. This appears not to be the case, however. I've included a sample test app below, which basically sums all the integers within an object array - but the array contains a lot of null references and string references as well as boxed integers. The benchmark measures the code you'd have to use in C# 1, the code using the "as" operator, and just for kicks a LINQ solution. To my astonishment, the C# 1 code is 20 times faster in this case - and even the LINQ code (which I'd have expected to be slower, given the iterators involved) beats the "as" code. Is the .NET implementation of isinst for nullable types just really slow? Is it the additional unbox.any that causes the problem? Is there another explanation for this? At the moment it feels like I'm going to have to include a warning against using this in performance sensitive situations... Results: Cast: 10000000 : 121 As: 10000000 : 2211 LINQ: 10000000 : 2143 Code: using System; using System.Diagnostics; using System.Linq; class Test { const int Size = 30000000; static void Main() { object[] values = new object[Size]; for (int i = 0; i < Size - 2; i += 3) { values[i] = null; values[i+1] = ""; values[i+2] = 1; } FindSumWithCast(values); FindSumWithAs(values); FindSumWithLinq(values); } static void FindSumWithCast(object[] values) { Stopwatch sw = Stopwatch.StartNew(); int sum = 0; foreach (object o in values) { if (o is int) { int x = (int) o; sum += x; } } sw.Stop(); Console.WriteLine("Cast: {0} : {1}", sum, (long) sw.ElapsedMilliseconds); } static void FindSumWithAs(object[] values) { Stopwatch sw = Stopwatch.StartNew(); int sum = 0; foreach (object o in values) { int? x = o as int?; if (x.HasValue) { sum += x.Value; } } sw.Stop(); Console.WriteLine("As: {0} : {1}", sum, (long) sw.ElapsedMilliseconds); } static void FindSumWithLinq(object[] values) { Stopwatch sw = Stopwatch.StartNew(); int sum = values.OfType<int>().Sum(); sw.Stop(); Console.WriteLine("LINQ: {0} : {1}", sum, (long) sw.ElapsedMilliseconds); } }

    Read the article

  • Using nullable types in C#

    - by Martin Brown
    I'm just interested in people's opinions. When using nullable types in C# what is the best practice way to test for null: bool isNull = (i == null); or bool isNull = !i.HasValue; Also when assigning to a non-null type is this: long? i = 1; long j = (long)i; better than: long? i = 1; long j = i.Value;

    Read the article

  • Binding a nullable int to an asp:TextBox

    - by Slauma
    I have a property int? MyProperty as a member in my datasource (ObjectDataSource). Can I bind this to a TextBox, like <asp:TextBox ID="MyTextBox" runat="server" Text='<%# Bind("MyProperty") %>' /> Basically I want to get a null value displayed as blank "" in the TextBox, and a number as a number. If the TextBox is blank MyProperty shall be set to null. If the TextBox has a number in it, MyProperty should be set to this number. If I try it I get an exception: "Blank is not a valid Int32". But how can I do that? How to work with nullable properties and Bind? Thanks in advance!

    Read the article

  • WPF Toolkit: Nullable object must have a value

    - by Via Lactea
    Hi All, I am trying to create some line charts from a dataset and getting an error (WPF+WPF Toolkit + C#): Nullable object must have a value Here is a code that I use to add some data points to the chart: ObservableCollection points = new ObservableCollection(); foreach (DataRow dr in dc.Tables[0].Rows) { points.Add(new VelChartPoint() { Label = dr[0].ToString(), Value = double.Parse(dr[1].ToString()) }); } Here is a class VelChartPoint public class VelChartPoint : VelObject, INotifyPropertyChanged { public DateTime Date { get; set; } public string Label { get; set; } private double _Value; public double Value { get { return _Value; } set { _Value = value; var handler = PropertyChanged; if (null != handler) { handler.Invoke(this, new PropertyChangedEventArgs("Value")); } } } public string FieldName { get; set; } public event PropertyChangedEventHandler PropertyChanged; public VelChartPoint() { } } So the problem occures in this part of the code points.Add(new VelChartPoint { Name = dc.Tables[0].Rows[0][0].ToString(), Value = double.Parse(dc.Tables[0].Rows[0][1].ToString()) } ); I've made some tests, here are some results i've found out. This part of code does'nt work for me: string[] labels = new string[] { "label1", "label2", "label3" }; foreach (string label in labels) { points.Add(new VelChartPoint { Name = label, Value = 500.0 } ); } But this one works fine: points.Add(new VelChartPoint { Name = "LabelText", Value = double.Parse(dc.Tables[0].Rows[0][1].ToString()) } ); Please, help me to solve this error.

    Read the article

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >