Ran across this line of code:
FormsAuth = formsAuth ?? new FormsAuthenticationWrapper();
What do the two question marks mean, is it some kind of ternary operator? It's hard to look up in Google.
C# ??
| C# '??'
| C# "??"
does not bring back expected results. Is the search engine testing if C# is null, and saying, No - Its actually C#
- Here are your results for C#
- Doh! - anyone double question mark c#
in Google. - anyone It's the null coalescing operator, and quite like the ternary (immediate-if) operator. See also ?? Operator - MSDN.
FormsAuth = formsAuth ?? new FormsAuthenticationWrapper();
expands to:
FormsAuth = formsAuth != null ? formsAuth : new FormsAuthenticationWrapper();
which further expands to:
if(formsAuth != null)
FormsAuth = formsAuth;
else
FormsAuth = new FormsAuthenticationWrapper();
In English, it means "If whatever is to the left is not null, use that, otherwise use what's to the right."
Note that you can use any number of these in sequence. The following statement will assign the first non-null Answer#
to Answer
(if all Answers are null then the Answer
is null):
string Answer = Answer1 ?? Answer2 ?? Answer3 ?? Answer4;
Also it's worth mentioning while the expansion above is conceptually equivalent, the result of each expression is only evaluated once. This is important if for example an expression is a method call with side effects. (Credit to @Joey for pointing this out.)
Answered 2023-09-20 21:01:21
??
is left associative, so a ?? b ?? c ?? d
is equivalent to ((a ?? b) ?? c ) ?? d
. "The assignment operators and the ternary operator (?:) are right associative. All other binary operators are left associative." Source: msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms173145.aspx - anyone Just because no-one else has said the magic words yet: it's the null coalescing operator. It's defined in section 7.12 of the C# 3.0 language specification.
It's very handy, particularly because of the way it works when it's used multiple times in an expression. An expression of the form:
a ?? b ?? c ?? d
will give the result of expression a
if it's non-null, otherwise try b
, otherwise try c
, otherwise try d
. It short-circuits at every point.
Also, if the type of d
is non-nullable, the type of the whole expression is non-nullable too.
Answered 2023-09-20 21:01:21
It's the null coalescing operator.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms173224.aspx
Yes, nearly impossible to search for unless you know what it's called! :-)
EDIT: And this is a cool feature from another question. You can chain them.
Answered 2023-09-20 21:01:21
Thanks everybody, here is the most succinct explanation I found on the MSDN site:
// y = x, unless x is null, in which case y = -1.
int y = x ?? -1;
Answered 2023-09-20 21:01:21
-1
is just a plain int
, which is non-nullable). - anyone The two question marks (??) indicate that its a Coalescing operator.
Coalescing operator returns the first NON-NULL value from a chain. You can see this youtube video which demonstrates the whole thing practically.
But let me add more to what the video says.
If you see the English meaning of coalescing it says “consolidate together”. For example below is a simple coalescing code which chains four strings.
So if str1
is null
it will try str2
, if str2
is null
it will try str3
and so on until it finds a string with a non-null value.
string final = str1 ?? str2 ?? str3 ?? str4;
In simple words Coalescing operator returns the first NON-NULL value from a chain.
Answered 2023-09-20 21:01:21
??
is there to provide a value for a nullable type when the value is null. So, if formsAuth is null, it will return new FormsAuthenticationWrapper().
Answered 2023-09-20 21:01:21
It's short hand for the ternary operator.
FormsAuth = (formsAuth != null) ? formsAuth : new FormsAuthenticationWrapper();
Or for those who don't do ternary:
if (formsAuth != null)
{
FormsAuth = formsAuth;
}
else
{
FormsAuth = new FormsAuthenticationWrapper();
}
Answered 2023-09-20 21:01:21
!= null
) and the second formsAuth
(after the ?
) could be altered; in the null coalesce form, both implicitly take the values you have supplied. - anyone Others have described the Null Coalescing Operator
quite well. In cases where a single test for null is required, the shortened syntax ??=
can add readability.
Legacy null test:
if (myvariable == null)
{
myvariable = new MyConstructor();
}
Using the Null Coalescing Operator this can be written:
myvariable = myvariable ?? new MyConstructor();
which can also be written with the shortened syntax:
myvariable ??= new MyConstructor();
Some find it more readable and succinct.
Answered 2023-09-20 21:01:21
If you're familiar with Ruby, its ||=
seems akin to C#'s ??
to me. Here's some Ruby:
irb(main):001:0> str1 = nil
=> nil
irb(main):002:0> str1 ||= "new value"
=> "new value"
irb(main):003:0> str2 = "old value"
=> "old value"
irb(main):004:0> str2 ||= "another new value"
=> "old value"
irb(main):005:0> str1
=> "new value"
irb(main):006:0> str2
=> "old value"
And in C#:
string str1 = null;
str1 = str1 ?? "new value";
string str2 = "old value";
str2 = str2 ?? "another new value";
Answered 2023-09-20 21:01:21
x ||= y
desugars to something like x = x || y
, so ??
is actually more similar to plain ||
in Ruby. - anyone ??
only cares about null
, whereas the ||
operator in Ruby, as in most languages, is more about null
, false
, or anything that can be considered a boolean with a value of false
(e.g. in some languages, ""
). This is not a good or bad thing, merely a difference. - anyone As correctly pointed in numerous answers that is the "null coalescing operator" (??), speaking of which you might also want to check out its cousin the "Null-conditional Operator" (?. or ?[) that is an operator that many times it is used in conjunction with ??
Used to test for null before performing a member access (?.) or index (?[) operation. These operators help you write less code to handle null checks, especially for descending into data structures.
For example:
// if 'customers' or 'Order' property or 'Price' property is null,
// dollarAmount will be 0
// otherwise dollarAmount will be equal to 'customers.Order.Price'
int dollarAmount = customers?.Order?.Price ?? 0;
the old way without ?. and ?? of doing this is
int dollarAmount = customers != null
&& customers.Order!=null
&& customers.Order.Price!=null
? customers.Order.Price : 0;
which is more verbose and cumbersome.
Answered 2023-09-20 21:01:21
coalescing operator
it's equivalent to
FormsAuth = formsAUth == null ? new FormsAuthenticationWrapper() : formsAuth
Answered 2023-09-20 21:01:21
Nothing dangerous about this. In fact, it is beautiful. You can add default value if that is desirable, for example:
CODE
int x = x1 ?? x2 ?? x3 ?? x4 ?? 0;
Answered 2023-09-20 21:01:21
int? x1 = null;
Is that right - anyone x1
- x4
MUST be nullable types: it makes no sense to say, effectively, "the result is 0
if x4
is a value which it can't possibly take" (null
). "Nullable type" here includes both nullable value types and reference types, of course. It is a compile-time error if one or more of the chained variables (except the last one) isn't nullable. - anyone For your amusement only (knowing you are all C# guys ;-).
I think it originated in Smalltalk, where it has been around for many years. It is defined there as:
in Object:
? anArgument
^ self
in UndefinedObject (aka nil's class):
? anArgument
^ anArgument
There are both evaluating (?) and non-evaluating versions (??) of this.
It is often found in getter-methods for lazy-initialized private (instance) variables, which are left nil until really needed.
Answered 2023-09-20 21:01:21
Some of the examples here of getting values using coalescing are inefficient.
What you really want is:
return _formsAuthWrapper = _formsAuthWrapper ?? new FormsAuthenticationWrapper();
or
return _formsAuthWrapper ?? (_formsAuthWrapper = new FormsAuthenticationWrapper());
This prevents the object from being recreated every time. Instead of the private variable remaining null and a new object getting created on every request, this ensures the private variable is assigned if the new object is created.
Answered 2023-09-20 21:01:21
??
short-cut evaluated? new FormsAuthenticationWrapper();
is evaluated if and only if _formsAuthWrapper
is nil. - anyone In simplest way, two question marks are called "Coalescing Operator", which returns first non null value from the chain.
e.g if you are getting a values from a nullable object, in a variable which is not nullable, then you can use this operator.
i.e.
int a = 1;
int? b = null;
a = b??0;
Result of above equation would be zero, because b is null and we have used the ?? operator along with zero, which means that it will return 0 if and only if b is null.
int a = 1;
int? b = 15;
a = b??0;
In above equation, a will get value "15" because b has a valid value and is not null.
Also, you can not use ?? operator on a non nullable object.
In above examples, I used ?? 0, however a complete new equation can also be used after ?? operator.
Such as
a = b ?? ( x==1 ? 10 : 15)
I hope it will clear your question.
Answered 2023-09-20 21:01:21
The ??
operator is called the null-coalescing operator. It returns the left-hand operand if the operand is not null; otherwise it returns the right hand operand.
int? variable1 = null;
int variable2 = variable1 ?? 100;
Set variable2
to the value of variable1
, if variable1
is NOT null;
otherwise, if variable1 == null
, set variable2
to 100.
Answered 2023-09-20 21:01:21
FormsAuth = formsAuth ?? new FormsAuthenticationWrapper();
is equivalent to
FormsAuth = formsAuth != null ? formsAuth : new FormsAuthenticationWrapper();
But the cool thing about it is you can chain them, like other people said. The one thin not touched upon is that you can actually use it to throw an exception.
A = A ?? B ?? throw new Exception("A and B are both NULL");
Answered 2023-09-20 21:01:21
It's a null coalescing operator that works similarly to a ternary operator.
a ?? b => a !=null ? a : b
Another interesting point for this is, "A nullable type can contain a value, or it can be undefined". So if you try to assign a nullable value type to a non-nullable value type you will get a compile-time error.
int? x = null; // x is nullable value type
int z = 0; // z is non-nullable value type
z = x; // compile error will be there.
So to do that using ?? operator:
z = x ?? 1; // with ?? operator there are no issues
Answered 2023-09-20 21:01:21