Extending the C# Coalesce Operator

Question

Before I explain what I want to do, if you look at the following code, would you understand what it's supposed to do? (updated - see below)

Console.WriteLine(
  Coalesce.UntilNull(getSomeFoo(), f => f.Value) ?? "default value");

C# already has a null-coalescing operator that works quite well on simple objects but doesn't help if you need to access a member of that object.

E.g.

Console.WriteLine(getSomeString()??"default");

works very well but it won't help you here:

public class Foo
{
  public Foo(string value) { Value=value; }
  public string Value { get; private set; }
}

// this will obviously fail if null was returned
Console.WriteLine(getSomeFoo().Value??"default"); 

// this was the intention
Foo foo=getSomeFoo();
Console.WriteLine(foo!=null?foo.Value:"default");

Since this is something that I come across quite often I thought about using an extension method (old version):

public static class Extension
{
  public static TResult Coalesce<T, TResult>(this T obj, Func<T, TResult> func, TResult defaultValue)
  {
    if (obj!=null) return func(obj);
    else return defaultValue;
  }

  public static TResult Coalesce<T, TResult>(this T obj, Func<T, TResult> func, Func<TResult> defaultFunc)
  {
    if (obj!=null) return func(obj);
    else return defaultFunc();
  }
}

Which allows me to write:

Console.WriteLine(getSomeFoo().Coalesce(f => f.Value, "default value"));

So would you consider this code to be readable? Is Coalesce a good name?

Edit 1: removed the brackets as suggested by Marc

Update

I really liked lassevk's suggestions and Groo's feedback. So I added overloads and didn't implement it as an extension method. I also decided that defaultValue was redundant because you could just use the existing ?? operator for that.

This is the revised class:

public static class Coalesce
{
  public static TResult UntilNull<T, TResult>(T obj, Func<T, TResult> func) where TResult : class
  {
    if (obj!=null) return func(obj);
    else return null;
  }

  public static TResult UntilNull<T1, T2, TResult>(T1 obj, Func<T1, T2> func1, Func<T2, TResult> func2) where TResult : class
  {
    if (obj!=null) return UntilNull(func1(obj), func2);
    else return null;
  }

  public static TResult UntilNull<T1, T2, T3, TResult>(T1 obj, Func<T1, T2> func1, Func<T2, T3> func2, Func<T3, TResult> func3) where TResult : class
  {
    if (obj!=null) return UntilNull(func1(obj), func2, func3);
    else return null;
  }

  public static TResult UntilNull<T1, T2, T3, T4, TResult>(T1 obj, Func<T1, T2> func1, Func<T2, T3> func2, Func<T3, T4> func3, Func<T4, TResult> func4) where TResult : class
  {
    if (obj!=null) return UntilNull(func1(obj), func2, func3, func4);
    else return null;
  }
}

Sample usage:

Console.WriteLine(
  Coalesce.UntilNull(getSomeFoo(), f => f.Value) ?? "default value");

Another sample:

public class Bar
{
  public Bar Child { get; set; }
  public Foo Foo { get; set; }
}

Bar bar=new Bar { Child=new Bar { Foo=new Foo("value") } };

// prints "value":
Console.WriteLine(
  Coalesce.UntilNull(bar, b => b.Child, b => b.Foo, f => f.Value) ?? "null");

// prints "null":
Console.WriteLine(
  Coalesce.UntilNull(bar, b => b.Foo, f => f.Value) ?? "null");

Answer 1

Yes, I would understand it. Yes, coalesce is a good name. Yes, it would be better if C# had a null-safe dereferencing operator like Groovy and some other languages :)

Answer 2

It confused me already... normally, you think of coalesce acting on its values - I imagined that the first non-null of (f) => f.Value, and "default value" would be returned, which isn't the case (the null test is on the originating instance).

Note it would be clearer without the brackets?

f => f.Value

What you are actually doing is similar to Select - so something like SafeSelect would be a good name, IMO (but maybe not exactly that...).

Or even simply Dereference, as long as the argument name (etc) makes it clear what the second arg is for.

Answer 3

Seems readable enough, though it's still a bit clumsy.

This seems like a perfect opportunity to implement the null object pattern though.

Consider:

public class Foo
{
  public Foo(string value) { Value=value; }
  public string Value { get; private set; }
  private static Foo nullFoo = new Foo("default value");
  public static Foo NullFoo { get { return nullFoo; } }
}

Then have getSomeFoo() return Foo.NullFoo instead of a null. It requires a little extra thought, but generally makes for nicer code.

Update in response to comments:

Let's say you don't control Foo, you can still (often) do this (which is more how you'd want to implement it regardless):

public class NullFoo : Foo
{
    private NullFoo() : base("default value") { }
    private static NullFoo instance = new NullFoo();
    public static Foo Instance { get { return instance; } }
}

Then return NullFoo.Instance from getSomeFoo(). If you don't control getSomeFoo() either, you yet still have the option to do this:

Console.WriteLine((getSomeFoo() ?? NullFoo.Instance).Value);

Answer 4

If you use it often in a code base, I think it is good as it is not too hard to understand on first reading and reduced the size of the code – so helps me to see the wood from the trees.

However if is only used 1 or 2 times, I think an "in line" if will be better, as I don’t see to think about the meaning of a “if” the first time I see it.

By "in line" if - I mean a normal if statement that has not be hidden in a seperate method.

Answer 5

This could easily be extended as well:

public static TResult Coalesce<T, TResult>(this T obj, Func<T, TResult> func, TResult defaultValue)
{
    if (obj == null)
        return defaultValue;

    return func(obj);
}

public static TResult Coalesce<T1, T2, TResult>(this T1 obj, Func<T1, T2> func1, Func<T2, TResult> func2, TResult defaultValue)
{
    if (obj == null)
        return defaultValue;

    T2 obj2 = func1(obj);
    if (obj2 == null)
        return defaultValue;

    return func2(obj2);
}

public static TResult Coalesce<T1, T2, T3, TResult>(this T1 obj, Func<T1, T2> func1, Func<T2, T3> func2, Func<T3, TResult> func3, TResult defaultValue)
{
    if (obj == null)
        return defaultValue;

    T2 obj2 = func1(obj);
    if (obj2 == null)
        return defaultValue;

    T3 obj3 = func2(obj2);
    if (obj3 == null)
        return defaultValue;

    return func3(obj3);
}

public static TResult Coalesce<T1, T2, T3, T4, TResult>(this T1 obj, Func<T1, T2> func1, Func<T2, T3> func2, Func<T3, T4> func3, Func<T4, TResult> func4, TResult defaultValue)
{
    if (obj == null)
        return defaultValue;

    T2 obj2 = func1(obj);
    if (obj2 == null)
        return defaultValue;

    T3 obj3 = func2(obj2);
    if (obj3 == null)
        return defaultValue;

    T4 obj4 = func3(obj3);
    if (obj4 == null)
        return defaultValue;

    return func4(obj4);
}

Which could be used like this:

BinaryTreeNode node = LocateNode(someKey);
BinaryTreeNode grandFatherNode = node.Coalesce(n1 => n1.Parent, n2 => n2.Parent, null);

Which would replace:

BinaryTreeNode grandFatherNode = node.Parent.Parent; // or null if none

Answer 6

Why not write down normal coalesce function, then you could use it like this:

coalesce(something, something_else, "default");

In other words -- what do you need lambdas for?

Answer 7

Hi Chris,

Great post! I updated your code to support returning Nullable because Nullable is implemented as a struct.

    public static class Coalesce
    {
        public static TResult UntilNull<T, TResult>(T obj, Func<T, TResult> func) where TResult : class
        {
            if (obj != null) return func(obj);
            else return null;
        }

        public static TResult UntilNull<T1, T2, TResult>(T1 obj, Func<T1, T2> func1, Func<T2, TResult> func2) where TResult : class
        {
            if (obj != null) return UntilNull(func1(obj), func2);
            else return null;
        }

        public static TResult UntilNull<T1, T2, T3, TResult>(T1 obj, Func<T1, T2> func1, Func<T2, T3> func2, Func<T3, TResult> func3) where TResult : class
        {
            if (obj != null) return UntilNull(func1(obj), func2, func3);
            else return null;
        }

        public static TResult UntilNull<T1, T2, T3, T4, TResult>(T1 obj, Func<T1, T2> func1, Func<T2, T3> func2, Func<T3, T4> func3, Func<T4, TResult> func4) where TResult : class
        {
            if (obj != null) return UntilNull(func1(obj), func2, func3, func4);
            else return null;
        }

        public static Nullable<TResult> UntilNull<T, TResult>(T obj, Func<T, Nullable<TResult>> func) where TResult : struct
        {
            if (obj != null) return func(obj);
            else return new Nullable<TResult>();
        }

        public static Nullable<TResult> UntilNull<T1, T2, TResult>(T1 obj, Func<T1, T2> func1, Func<T2, Nullable<TResult>> func2) where TResult : struct
        {
            if (obj != null) return UntilNull(func1(obj), func2);
            else return new Nullable<TResult>();
        }

        public static Nullable<TResult> UntilNull<T1, T2, T3, TResult>(T1 obj, Func<T1, T2> func1, Func<T2, T3> func2, Func<T3, Nullable<TResult>> func3) where TResult : struct
        {
            if (obj != null) return UntilNull(func1(obj), func2, func3);
            else return new Nullable<TResult>();
        }

        public static Nullable<TResult> UntilNull<T1, T2, T3, T4, TResult>(T1 obj, Func<T1, T2> func1, Func<T2, T3> func2, Func<T3, T4> func3, Func<T4, Nullable<TResult>> func4) where TResult : struct
        {
            if (obj != null) return UntilNull(func1(obj), func2, func3, func4);
            else return new Nullable<TResult>();
        }
    }