Why don't nullable relational operators return bool? instead of bool?

re: Why don't nullable relational operators return bool? instead of bool?

BitMaster — Thu, 07 Mar 2013 13:26:20 GMT

But I guess when you test for null references, you don't think of null as undefined so you therefore expect null == null (no address == no adress).

I kinda changed my opinion. I guess null == null is better.

re: Why don't nullable relational operators return bool? instead of bool?

BitMaster — Thu, 07 Mar 2013 11:22:03 GMT

Or you can say that Null means "no value" instead of "undefined", which is pretty weird.

In that way, Null == Null might be ok. But still Null != Null would have been better in my opinion.

So C# null is a different concept from database null.

re: Why don't nullable relational operators return bool? instead of bool?

BitMaster — Thu, 07 Mar 2013 11:09:50 GMT

Very bad decision.

And NaN != NaN in the same time.

The compiler should signal a warning when comapring to null (== always false and != always true).

re: Why don't nullable relational operators return bool? instead of bool?

Koen — Tue, 15 May 2012 20:56:24 GMT

Klaus RM: language nazi's like you will always be around. I think C# was very well thought out, and the nullable types are great and solve a great deal of problems. The ??-operator is a great help too. It's right in front of you when used, and it's totally readable.

Nullable Types in .net 2.0

random ramblings.... — Sat, 18 Mar 2006 20:39:13 GMT

Reminder to self for when I inevitably loose the bookmarks when my computer goes on a bookmark eating frenzy: -- Nullable Types in C# -- The Truth about Nullable Types and VB... -- Why don't nullable relational operators return bool?...

Nullable types

Flier's Sky — Thu, 08 Jul 2004 06:31:00 GMT

Nullable types

The Truth about Nullable Types and VB...

Panopticon Central — Fri, 04 Jun 2004 20:14:00 GMT

Nothing doing.

re: Why don't nullable relational operators return bool? instead of bool?

Kael Rowan — Mon, 31 May 2004 14:33:00 GMT

I found the answer to my question in section 24.1 of the C# 2.0 Spec:

"The syntax T? is shorthand for System.Nullable<T>, and the two forms can be used interchangeably."

re: Why don't nullable relational operators return bool? instead of bool?

Talbott Crowell — Sat, 29 May 2004 04:18:00 GMT

I am very glad that you decided that the relational operators will return a bool (true/false). If relational operators returned a tri-state value (true/false/null) it would make the language unbearable.

re: Why don't nullable relational operators return bool? instead of bool?

Kael Rowan — Thu, 27 May 2004 19:08:00 GMT

Is this sort of question-mark syntax in the 2.0 specification or is it for a future version of the language, such as C# 3.0? Is the question mark a shortcut for the Nullable generic?