Tip of the day: Using the null-coalescing operator over the conditional operator

I’ve recently been refactoring a lot of code that used the conditional operator and looked something like this:

int someValue = myEntity.SomeNullableValue.HasValue
                    ? myEntity.SomeNullableValue.Value
                    : 0;

That might seem less verbose than the traditional alternative, which looks like this:

int someValue = 0;
if (myEntity.SomeNullableValue.HasValue)
    someValue = myEntity.SomeNullableValue.Value;

…or other variations on that theme.

However, there is a better way of expressing this. That is to use the null-coalescing operator.

Essentially, what is says is that the value on the left of the operator will be used, unless it is null in which case the value ont the right is used. You can also chain them together which effectively returns the first non-null value.

So now the code above looks a lot more manageable and understandable:

int someValue = myEntity.SomeNullableValue ?? 0;

Why should you be returning an IEnumerable

I’ve seen in many places where a method returns a List<T> (or IList<T>) when it appears that it may not actually really be required, or even desirable when all things are considered.

A List is mutable, you can change the state of the List. You can add things to the List, you can remove things from the List, you can change the items the List contains. This means that everything that has a reference to the List instantly sees the changes, either because an element has changed or elements have been added or removed. If you are working in a multi-threaded environment, which will be increasingly common as time goes on, you will get issues with thread safety if the List is used inside other threads and one or more threads starts changing the List.

Return values should, unless you have a specific use case in mind already, be returning an IEnumerable<T> which is not mutable. If the underlying type is still a List (or Array or any of a myriad of other types that implement IEnumerable<T>) you can still cast it. Also, some LINQ expressions will self optimise if the underlying type is one which better supports what LINQ is doing. (Remember that LINQ expressions always take an IEnumerable<T> or IQueryable<T> anyway so you can do what you like regardless of what the underlying type is).

If you ensure that your return values are IEnumerable<T> to begin with yet further down the line you realise you need to return an Array or List<T> from the method it is easy to start doing that. This is because everything accepting the return value from the method will still be expecting an IEnumerable<T> which List<T> and Array implement. If, however, you started with a List<T> and move to returning an IEnumerable<T> then because so much code will have the expectation of a List<T> without actually needing it you will have a lot of refactoring to do just to update the reference types.

Have I convinced you yet? If not, think about this. How often are you inserting items into a collection of objects after the initial creation routine? How often do you remove items from a collection after the initial creation routine? How often do you need to access a specific item by index within a collection after the initial creation routine? My guess is almost never. There are some occasions, but not actually that many.

It took me a while to get my head around always using an IEnumerable<T>, until I realised that I almost never require to do the things in the above paragraph. I almost always just need to loop over a collection of objects, or filter a collection of objects to produce a smaller set. Both of those things can be done with just an IEnumerable<T> and LINQ.

But, what if I need a count of the objects in the List<T>, that would be inefficient with an IEnumerable<T> and LINQ? Well, do you really need a count? Oftentimes I just need to know if there are any objects at all in the collection, I don’t care how many object there actually are, in which case the LINQ extension method Any() can be used. If you do need a count LINQ is clever enough to work out that the underlying type may expose a Count property and it calls that (anything that implements ICollection<T> such as arrays, lists, dictionaries, sets, and so on) so it is not iterating over all the objects counting them up each time.

Remember, there is nothing necessarily wrong with putting a ToArray() to ToList() before returning as a reference to an IEnumerable<T> something to which a LINQ expression has been applied. That removes the issues that deferred execution can bring (e.g. unexpected surprises when it suddenly evaluates during the first iteration but breaks in the process) or repeatedly applying the filter in the Where() method or the transformation in the Select() method.

Just because an object is of a specific type, doesn’t mean you have to return that specific type.

For example, consider the services you actually need on the collection that you are returning, remembering how much LINQ gives you. The following diagram shows what each of the interfaces expect to be implemented what a number of the common collection types implement themselves.

Incidentally, the reason some of the interfaces on the Array class are in a different colour is that these interfaces are added by the runtime. So if you have a string[] it will expose IEnumerable<string>.

I’d suggest that as a general rule IEnumerable<T> should be the return type when you have anything that implements it as the return type from the method, unless something from an ICollection<T> or IList<T> (or any other type of collection) as absolutely desperately in needed and not just because some existing code expects, say, an IList<T> (even although it is using no more services from it that it would had it been an IEnumerable<T>).

The mutability that implementations of ICollection<T> and IList<T> give will prove problematic in the long term. If you have a large team with members that don’t fully understand what is going on (and this is quite common given the general level developer documentation) they are likely to change the contents of the collection without understanding its implications. In some situations this may fine, in others it may be disastrous.

Finally, if you absolutely do need to return a more specific collection type then instead of returning a reference to the concrete class, return a reference to the lowest interface that you need. For example, if you have a List<T> and you need to add further items to it, but not at specific locations in the list, then ICollection<T> will be the most suitable return type.

Dynamic Objects in C# 4.0

It seems only very recently that I was posting about this wonderful new feature in C# 3.0 called LINQ and its associated language features such as anonymous types, object initialisers and lambda expressions. Soon C#4.0 will be released and it has a host of new goodies to look forward to.

So far I’ve just been dabbling with dynamic types and the dynamic keyword.

C# has been up until this point a purely statically bound language. That meant that if the compiler couldn’t find the method to bind to then it wasn’t going to compile the application. Other languages, such as Ruby, IronPython, Magik and IronSmalltalk are all dynamically (or late) bound where the decision about where a method call ends up is taken at runtime.

Now if you declare an object as being dynamic the compiler will hold off, just as it would do naturally in a dynamic language. The method need not exist until runtime. The binding happens at runtime. SnagIt CaptureIf, like me, you rely heavily on intellisense to figure out if you are doing the right thing then you are going to have to get used to not having it. Since the call will be bound at runtime the compiler (and of course intellisense) won’t know whether a binding is valid or not. So, instead of regular intellisense you get a message simply saying “(dyanmic expression) This operation will be resolved at runtime.”

So, how do you get started with dynamic objects? I suppose the simplest example would be an object graph that is built at runtime that would normally have a fairly dynamic structure, say a nice XML file.

In this example, I’m going to take an XElement object (introduced in .NET 3.5) and wrap it in a new object type I’m creating called DynamicElement. This will inherit from DynamicObject (in the System.Dynamic namespace) which provides various bits of functionality that allows late binding.

using System.Dynamic;
using System.Linq;
using System.Xml.Linq;

namespace ColinAngusMackay.DynamicXml
    public class DynamicElement : DynamicObject
        private XElement actualElement;

        public DynamicElement(XElement actualElement)
            this.actualElement = actualElement;

        public override bool TryGetMember(GetMemberBinder binder,
            out object result)
            string name = binder.Name;

            var elements = actualElement.Elements(name);

            int numElements = elements.Count();
            if (numElements == 0)
                return base.TryGetMember(binder, out result);
            if (numElements == 1)
                result = new DynamicElement(elements.First());
                return true;

            result = from e in elements select new DynamicElement(e);
            return true;

        public override string ToString()
            return actualElement.Value;

The key method in this class is the override of the TryGetMember method. Everytime the runtime needs to resolve a method call it will call this method to work out what it needs to do.

In this example, all that happens is that if the name matches the name of a child element in the XML then that child element is returned. If there are multiple child elements with the same name then an enumerable collection of child elements is returned.

SnagIt CaptureIn the event that there is no match the method defers to the base class. If the binding fails then a RuntimeBinderException is thrown.

However, if the binding works you can make complex or ugly calls look much easier. For example. This program using the DynamicElement class to read the contents of an RSS feed:

using System;
using System.Xml.Linq;
using ColinAngusMackay.DynamicXml;

namespace ConsoleRunner
    class Program
        static void Main(string[] args)
            XElement xel = XElement.Parse(SampleXml.RssFeed);
            dynamic del = new DynamicElement(xel);


            foreach (dynamic item in del.channel.item)


The program starts off by reading in some XML into a regular XElement object. It it then wrapped up into the DynamicElement object, del.

The variable del is declared as a dynamic which lets compiler know that calls to its members will be resolved at runtime.

The program then uses the dynamic object to very easily navigate the XML. In this example, I’ve used the XML of the RSS feed for my blog.

The output of the program is:

SnagIt Capture


The barrier to entry for creating and using dynamic objects is quite low. It will be quite interesting to see how this new feature plays out.

Many people like the additional comfort that static binding at compile time provides as it means less things to go wrong at compile time. Advocates of dynamic binding often argue that if you are doing TDD then the tests will ensure that the application is running correctly.

Of course, dynamic binding, like any other language features, is open to abuse. I fully expect to see on forums examples of people who are using it quite wrongly and getting themselves into a terrible pickle as a result. This does not mean that dynamic objects are bad, it just means programmers need to learn how to use the tools they have correctly.

Caveat Programmator: This blog post is based on early preliminary information using Visual Studio 2010 / .NET Framework 4.0 Beta 1