Writing “string.IsNullOrEmpty” using pattern matching and comparing the resulting code (www.tabsoverspaces.com)

submitted 1 month ago by SmartmanApps@programming.dev to c/csharp@programming.dev

4 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] JakenVeina@lemm.ee 3 points 1 month ago

The usual convention is to have extension methods behave like regular methods, I.E. don't allow them to accept nulls. When looking at foo.Bar(); it's better if I can just intuit that foo can't be null because you're not supposed to be able to invoke the . operator on null.

Of course, I'm entirely guilty of breaking this rule myself. cough Shoudly cough FluentAssertions cough

[-] Rogue@feddit.uk 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

I've always used the Nullable context so typically I'm just using string.IsNullOrEmpty to determine empty strings, I'm already confident null isn't leaking. But your explanation does make sense.

I'm now wondering why I've never just used myStr != ""