What is the most concise way to write the opposite of a null coalesce

Question

Possible Duplicate:
Is there an “opposite” to the null coalescing operator? (…in any language?)

Is there a more concise way of writing the third line here?

int? i = GetSomeNullableInt();
int? j = GetAnother();
int k = i == null ? i : j;

I know of the null coalescing operator but the behaviour I'm looking for is the opposite of this:

int k == i ?? j;

Wait a second... why'd you ask a question and then vote to close it as a dupe? — BoltClock, Sep 12 '11 at 18:55

score 1 · Answer 1 · answered Sep 12 '11 at 18:51

1

In C#, the code you have is the most concise way to write what you want.

answered Sep 12 '11 at 18:51

Justin Niessner

242,243
40
408
536

Wesley Long · Accepted Answer · 2011-09-12T19:00:10.373

1

Sneaky - you edited it while I was replying. :)

I do not believe there is a more concise way of writing that. However, I would use the "HasValue" property, rather than == null. Easier to see your intent that way.

int? k = !i.HasValue ? i : j;

(BTW - k has to be nullable, too.)

edited Sep 12 '11 at 19:00

answered Sep 12 '11 at 18:54

Wesley Long

1,708
10
20

score 1 · Answer 3 · answered Sep 12 '11 at 18:55

What is the point of that operator? The use cases are pretty limited. If you're looking for a single-line solution without having to use a temporary variable, it's not needed in the first place.

int k = GetSomeNullableInt() == null ? null : GetAnother();

What is the most concise way to write the opposite of a null coalesce

3 Answers3