<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="http://blogs.msdn.com/utility/FeedStylesheets/rss.xsl" media="screen"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/" xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"><channel><title>Why don't nullable relational operators return bool? instead of bool?</title><link>http://blogs.msdn.com/csharpfaq/archive/2004/05/25/141570.aspx</link><description>Q: Why don't nullable relational operators return &amp;#8220;bool?&amp;#8221; instead of &amp;#8220;bool&amp;#8220;? Nullable types are a new feature of C# 2.0 . When dealing with nullable types, if you write the following: int? i = 15; int? j = 16; the type of i ==</description><dc:language>en-US</dc:language><generator>CommunityServer 2.1 SP1 (Build: 61025.2)</generator><item><title>re: Why don't nullable relational operators return bool? instead of bool?</title><link>http://blogs.msdn.com/csharpfaq/archive/2004/05/25/141570.aspx#142933</link><pubDate>Thu, 27 May 2004 08:11:00 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">91d46819-8472-40ad-a661-2c78acb4018c:142933</guid><dc:creator>Virag</dc:creator><description>I think the above is applicable to C# 2.0 It will be better if the version to which the faq is applicable is mentioned because &amp;quot;int?&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;nullable bool&amp;quot; sent me googling for them and I spent some real worried moments trying to figure out that its a new thing and its not a concept/feature in the existing C# version.</description></item><item><title>re: Why don't nullable relational operators return bool? instead of bool?</title><link>http://blogs.msdn.com/csharpfaq/archive/2004/05/25/141570.aspx#143019</link><pubDate>Thu, 27 May 2004 13:37:00 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">91d46819-8472-40ad-a661-2c78acb4018c:143019</guid><dc:creator>Klaus RM</dc:creator><description>Do you know where to come with an opinion on the new syntax? I hate it. I ruins one of my best selling points for C#: The syntax is simple and readable. &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Now we can have &amp;quot;??&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;int?&amp;quot;. Well, this doesn't help to make the code readable. &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;On the other hand maybe obfuscators is not needed any more ;-)</description></item><item><title>re: Why don't nullable relational operators return bool? instead of bool?</title><link>http://blogs.msdn.com/csharpfaq/archive/2004/05/25/141570.aspx#143241</link><pubDate>Thu, 27 May 2004 19:08:00 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">91d46819-8472-40ad-a661-2c78acb4018c:143241</guid><dc:creator>Kael Rowan</dc:creator><description>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?</description></item><item><title>re: Why don't nullable relational operators return bool? instead of bool?</title><link>http://blogs.msdn.com/csharpfaq/archive/2004/05/25/141570.aspx#144279</link><pubDate>Sat, 29 May 2004 04:18:00 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">91d46819-8472-40ad-a661-2c78acb4018c:144279</guid><dc:creator>Talbott Crowell</dc:creator><description>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.</description></item><item><title>re: Why don't nullable relational operators return bool? instead of bool?</title><link>http://blogs.msdn.com/csharpfaq/archive/2004/05/25/141570.aspx#144901</link><pubDate>Mon, 31 May 2004 14:33:00 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">91d46819-8472-40ad-a661-2c78acb4018c:144901</guid><dc:creator>Kael Rowan</dc:creator><description>I found the answer to my question in section 24.1 of the C# 2.0 Spec:&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;quot;The syntax T? is shorthand for System.Nullable&amp;lt;T&amp;gt;, and the two forms can be used interchangeably.&amp;quot;</description></item><item><title>The Truth about Nullable Types and VB...</title><link>http://blogs.msdn.com/csharpfaq/archive/2004/05/25/141570.aspx#148614</link><pubDate>Fri, 04 Jun 2004 20:14:00 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">91d46819-8472-40ad-a661-2c78acb4018c:148614</guid><dc:creator>Panopticon Central</dc:creator><description>Nothing doing.</description></item><item><title>Nullable types</title><link>http://blogs.msdn.com/csharpfaq/archive/2004/05/25/141570.aspx#175969</link><pubDate>Thu, 08 Jul 2004 06:31:00 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">91d46819-8472-40ad-a661-2c78acb4018c:175969</guid><dc:creator>Flier's Sky</dc:creator><description>Nullable types</description></item><item><title>Nullable Types in .net 2.0</title><link>http://blogs.msdn.com/csharpfaq/archive/2004/05/25/141570.aspx#554502</link><pubDate>Sat, 18 Mar 2006 20:39:13 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">91d46819-8472-40ad-a661-2c78acb4018c:554502</guid><dc:creator>random ramblings....</dc:creator><description>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?...</description></item></channel></rss>