C# 2.0 introduced nullable types to the language (apparently late in the dev cycle - more on that soon), something that I could have used way back when.
I know, LtU duders - nobody can prove that we really need null and it's a terrible idea. Or an OK enough idea in the absence of rigorous mathematical proofs but, and don't let nobody in on this, I nearly flunked out of my 9th grade math class (which was really the advanced 10th grade math class; I can't explain it neither) because I could not prove my way out of a paper bag. Calculus eluded me and vector math haunts my nightmares. I'm no math pro and this is a blind spot I'm all too aware of.
But null's really useful, honest.
In our application, we have to deal with dates that the user's supplying. Since this is client-side input, we have to deal with two possible fundamental problems with the dates. Did they forget to enter a (mandatory) date? Did they enter an invalid date?
I mention dates because they're (in .Net) a value type. Like other value types, once you create the variable, they're automatically assigned a value as opposed to reference types, which are null until you instantiate them (the pointer, she points nowhere). And then there's string, which lives in a state of sin in the gray area between value and reference (it's a reference type but when you pass/copy it, you get a copy of the string rather than a pointer to the object). Officially, a string's an "immutable reference type" (thanks, Google!). Tangentially, are there other immutable reference types in the .Net framework? Damned if I can think of one.
So what's any of this have to do with nullable values?
The user forgot to enter a date. OK. What value should we use to represent the fact that that the user entered an invalid date? DateTime.MinValue, maybe? Sounds reasonable.
That's covered, so on to fundamental bloops number two - the user entered an invalid date. Hmm. DateTime.MinValue's already been recycled as a magic number to represent "missing date", so we'll use DateTime.MaxValue. Game, set, ma... oh, wait.
You mean we'll have a need throughout the application to use DateTime.MaxValue to represent things that are open-ended?
Now we've got a problem. Do we want to pick out a second magic number to represent the fact that the user entered an invalid date? Maybe treat an invalid date and a date that hasn't been entered identically? Maybe we want to wrap dates in a struct that contains a DateTime and booleans for invalid/missing date?
Hmm. That code's starting to stink pretty badly. There's got to be a better way.
That's where I was hoping nullable types would come to the rescue. Where previously we had to use magic numbers to represent error states in our values, we can now use a not-so-magic value - null.
Suddenly, we're not looking to wrap things in a struct and perform all sorts of acts that no shower will ever quite rinse off. User forgot to enter a value? Null. Invalid date? DateTime.Minvalue. Take in the win.
Did I mention that nullable types came late in the development cycle? Let's take a look at a little code and see how it works out.
string nullStr = null;
nullStr.ToString();
Trying to execute a method on an uninitialized variable - what do you get? A NullReferenceException. No-brainer.
int? nullInt = null;
nullInt.ToString();
Let's try the same thing on a nullable integer. We should get the same thing, right? Wrong. It returns string.Empty. To get the same result, you'd have to say...
int? nullInt = null;
nullInt.Value.ToString();
What the shit? Nullable types have a .Value property? Pro move, guys. Way to leak the fuck out of that abstraction.
Truth be told, ToString() not horking a NullReferenceException doesn't bother me that much. It's the unexpected coalescing of a null value that gets me. I set out with my golden hammer to create a new li'l method called ToStringOrNull() and hang it off of Nullable<T> that does what I'd have designed ToString() to do in the first place - return a null string if the value's null and call the generic ToString() function otherwise. But I can't attach a constraint to that function because Nullable<T> is a structure, not a class. Fail, fail again.
Polluting the namespace with this feels wrong, so what do I do?
Tell other developers to always use nullableType.Value.ToString() and hope that nobody slips up?
Add bunches of tests to our increasingly tag soup-y MVC app (and hope that nobody forgets to do it)?
Not good times. Small inconsistencies pile up until you're so busy bookkeeping for them that you can pretty easily lose sight of the bigger picture. Either that or you grow your Unix beard out and spend your days using your phallus to point to chapter and verse for the reference specification for your language of choice on Usenet. The latter's not an option for me since I can't grow a beard and the former ain't pretty neither.
I'm hoping that I can sneak in some elegant solution to calm this jittery behavior, but I've got no idea what it'll look like.
I just wanted to give a special shout-out to whoever for the head-scratching behavior. Wait. Is the person behind [DebuggerStepThrough] behind this? By all that is unholy, I will get you for this. These. Whatever.
No comments:
Post a Comment