Does .NET have a way of resolving a null string to String.Empty?
Question
I've got a one line method that resolves a null string to string.Empty which I thought might be useful as an extension method - but I can't find a useful way of making it so.
The only way I could see it being useful is as a static method on the string class because obviously it can't be attributed to an instance as the instance is null and this causes a compiler error. [Edit: Compiler error was due to uninitialized variable, which I misinterpreted]
I thought about adding it to a helper class but that just adds unnecessary complexity from a discoverability standpoint.
So this question is in two parts I suppose:
- Does the .NET framework have a built in way of resolving a null string to string.Empty that is common knowledge that I have missed somewhere along the way?
- If it doesn't - does anyone know of a way to add this method as a static extension of the string class?
Cheers in advance
Edit:
Okay, I guess I should've been a little more clear - I'm already well aware of null coallescing and I was using this in a place where I've got a dozen or so strings being inspected for calculation of a hash code.
As you can imagine, 12 lines of code closely following each other all containing the null coallescing syntax is an eyesore, so I moved the null coallescing operation out to a method to make things easier easier on the eyes. Which is perfect, however, it would be a perfect extension to the string object:
int hashcode =
FirstValue.ResolveNull().GetHashCode() ^
SecondValue.ResolveNull().GetHashCode() ^
...
over a dozen lines is a lot easier to read than:
int hashcode =
(FirstValue ?? String.Empty).GetHashCode() ^
(SecondValue ?? String.Empty).GetHashCode() ^
...
I was running into compiler problems when I didn't explicitly declare my string values as null but relied on the implicit:
string s;
If however, you explicitly define:
string s = null;
You can quite easily call:
s.ResolveNull();
Thanks all for your input.
Solution
The only way I could see it being useful is as a static method on the string class because obviously it can't be attributed to an instance as the instance is null and this would cause a runtime error.
C# 3.0 extension methods can be called on null receivers (since they are static in practice), but behave as instance methods. So just make it an extension method.
OTHER TIPS
I don't think there's anything built in for this. My first thought, and what I do often, is use the coalesce operator:
string s = null;
string x = s ?? string.Empty;
someExpressionInvolving(s ?? "");
There is no point getting excited about string.Empty
vs ""
- there is negligible difference:
Console.WriteLine(ReferenceEquals(string.Empty, "")); // true
Extension method:
public static class StringExtensions
{
public static String EmptyIfNull(this String instance)
{
return instance ?? String.Empty;
}
}
of course, you can just as easily write instance ?? String.Empty
in places where you need to use String.Empty instead of null.
string test = CouldReturnNull() ?? string.Empty;
You can use the ?? Operator (null-coalescing operator) in C# - is that what you mean? Or have I misunderstood?
eg.
string n = null;
string y = n ?? String.Empty;
y would = String.Empty;
string abc = s ?? string.Empty;
I would say that implementing this as an extension method would feel a bit like what we in Sweden call "to travel to the other side of the creek to fetch water". When I need to ensure I get an empty string instead of null I often just concatenate with string.Empty
:
public void SomeMethod(string param)
{
string notNull = param + string.Empty;
}
Sure, this may lead to an extra string instance being created, but in most real-world situations I have been in this has not been a problem.
There is no build in function for that. But you can write a little extension method (or a static menthod) for the string type with a statement like:
return s ?? string.Emtpy;
Just add string.Empty to any string variable and you'll be guaranteed to never get null
string a = null;
string b = null + string.Empty;
string c = "a" + string.Empty;
(a == string.Empty).Dump(); // False
(b == string.Empty).Dump(); // True
(c == "a").Dump(); // True
I threw this in LinqPad, hence the .Dump()'s
Looking at your options...
This technique
string b = null + string.Empty;
generates
IL_0001: ldsfld System.String.Empty
IL_0006: dup
IL_0007: brtrue.s IL_000F
IL_0009: pop
IL_000A: ldstr ""
IL_000F: stloc.0
The other popular option:
string b = null ?? string.empty
generates
IL_0001: ldsfld System.String.Empty
IL_0006: stloc.0
and this
string b = null + "";
generates this
IL_0001: ldstr ""
IL_0006: stloc.0
I still favor
string b = null + "";
But really, IMO, you should just be prepared to handle null when you digest the string