3 ms·

This is a pain. I recently switched from Java (and its whole Optional/null mess) to C#. I was initially impressed by its nullable checks, but then I discovere

by mrkeen 1y ago

This is a pain. I recently switched from Java (and its whole Optional/null mess) to C#. I was initially impressed by its nullable checks, but then I discovered 'default'. Now I gotta check that Guids aren't 0000...? It makes me miss the Java situation.

electroly 1y ago
You don't need the "default" keyword to run into that. A simple "new Guid()" gives you all-zeroes (try it!). Nice and foot-gunny.
- masfoobar 1y ago
  > A simple "new Guid()" gives you all-zeroes In C#, to have all zeroes, you would do "Guid.Empty"
  - masfoobar 1y ago
    (continued from my comment above) Apologies, I am missing some text on here. No sure what happened. I might have deleted before I submitted. I cannot edit this comment, but I need to clarify and correct it... "new Guid()" is equiverlant "Guid.Empty" Personally, I would prefer writing "Guid.Empty" as it is cleaner. It also helps ensure you understand reading other developers code... their intensions. Afterall, a lesser experienced developer may not know (or simply forgot) that "new Guid()" does not create a new, unique value. So writing "new Guid()" looks more misleading. var myGuid1 = new Guid(); // all zeroes, or a value? var myGuid2 = Guid.Empty; // Ah.. all zeroes. It is ESPECIALLY cleaner when doing comparison :- if(myGuid2 == Guid.Empty) { } To set a Guid, you would do :- myGuid2 = Guid.NewGuid(); // This makes sense.
neonsunset 1y ago
Only if you go out of your way to author a method with (Guid someGuid = default) argument. I've never seen it happen with Guids, if someone gives you default(Guid) - they did it on purpose, it's no different to explicitly setting `0` to an integer-typed UserID property. If supplying Guid is optional, you just make it Guid?. To be fair, I don't think offering default(T) by default (ha) is the best choice for structs. In F#, you have to explicitly do `Unchecked.defaultOf` and otherwise it will just not let you have your way - it is watertight. I much prefer this approach even if it can be less convenient at times.

by mrkeen 1y ago

electroly 1y ago

You don't need the "default" keyword to run into that. A simple "new Guid()" gives you all-zeroes (try it!). Nice and foot-gunny.

masfoobar 1y ago
> A simple "new Guid()" gives you all-zeroes In C#, to have all zeroes, you would do "Guid.Empty"
- masfoobar 1y ago
  (continued from my comment above) Apologies, I am missing some text on here. No sure what happened. I might have deleted before I submitted. I cannot edit this comment, but I need to clarify and correct it... "new Guid()" is equiverlant "Guid.Empty" Personally, I would prefer writing "Guid.Empty" as it is cleaner. It also helps ensure you understand reading other developers code... their intensions. Afterall, a lesser experienced developer may not know (or simply forgot) that "new Guid()" does not create a new, unique value. So writing "new Guid()" looks more misleading. var myGuid1 = new Guid(); // all zeroes, or a value? var myGuid2 = Guid.Empty; // Ah.. all zeroes. It is ESPECIALLY cleaner when doing comparison :- if(myGuid2 == Guid.Empty) { } To set a Guid, you would do :- myGuid2 = Guid.NewGuid(); // This makes sense.

neonsunset 1y ago

Only if you go out of your way to author a method with (Guid someGuid = default) argument. I've never seen it happen with Guids, if someone gives you default(Guid) - they did it on purpose, it's no different to explicitly setting `0` to an integer-typed UserID property. If supplying Guid is optional, you just make it Guid?. To be fair, I don't think offering default(T) by default (ha) is the best choice for structs. In F#, you have to explicitly do `Unchecked.defaultOf` and otherwise it will just not let you have your way - it is watertight. I much prefer this approach even if it can be less convenient at times.