Is it possible to make the following code to compile in Kotlin?
val variable: String? = "string"
val (a, b) = variable?.run {
1 to 2
}
The compiler does not allow destructuring because the expression on the right-hand side is typed as a nullable Pair<Int, Int>?, and it's unclear what values a and b should get in case variable is null.
To solve this, you need to get a not-null expression after =.
There's a lot of different ways to deal with nullable values and produce a not-null value from a nullable one, see: In Kotlin, what is the idiomatic way to deal with nullable values, referencing or converting them
For example, if you want to provide fallback values for a and b, then use the ?: operator as follows:
val (a, b) = variable?.run {
1 to 2
} ?: (0 to 0)
An alternative, for example, would be to check variable for null first:
val (a, b) = checkNotNull(variable) { "variable should never be null" }.run {
1 to 2
}
Null doesn't have any destructuring declarations. If you want a value of null to destructure like it's a pair of nulls, you could add these extensions:
operator fun <T> Pair<T, *>?.component1() = this?.component1()
operator fun <T> Pair<*, T>?.component2() = this?.component2()
Otherwise, as the other answer shows, you need to provide a default using the Elvis operator.
It's not automatic because it doesn't know what you want. Depending on what you're doing with it, 0 to 0 may be most appropriate, or maybe -1 to -1 or 0 to null or null to null.
The question is, what do you want to do if your variable is null? If you want to throw an exception, go with require or check as #hotkey suggested.
However I have the case where I just want to return if the value is null. So I wrote myself a little helper function that allows for this:
private inline fun <T> T?.exitIfNull(exitBlock: () -> Nothing): T {
if (this == null)
exitBlock()
else
return this
}
You can call this function as follows:
val (a, b) = variable?.run {
1 to 2
}.exitIfNull {
return
}
A nice little use of the Nothing keyword in Kotlin that I personally find quite fascinating
Related
I can't figure out what ?: does in for example this case
val list = mutableList ?: mutableListOf()
and why can it be modified to this
val list = if (mutableList != null) mutableList else mutableListOf()
TL;DR: If the resulting object reference [first operand] is not null, it is returned. Otherwise the value of the second operand (which may be null) is returned. Additionally, the operator can throw an exception if null is returned.
The Elvis operator is part of many programming languages, e.g. Kotlin but also Groovy or C#.
I find the Wikipedia definition pretty accurate:
In certain computer programming languages, the Elvis operator ?: is a binary operator that returns its first operand if that operand is true, and otherwise evaluates and returns its second operand. It is a variant of the ternary conditional operator, ? :, found in those languages (and many others): the Elvis operator is the ternary operator with its second operand omitted.
The following is especially true for Kotlin:
Some computer programming languages have different semantics for this operator. Instead of the first operand having to result in a boolean, it must result in an object reference. If the resulting object reference is not null, it is returned. Otherwise the value of the second operand (which may be null) is returned. If the second operand is null, the operator is also able to throw an exception.
An example:
x ?: y // yields `x` if `x` is not null, `y` otherwise.
x ?: throw SomeException() // yields `x` if `x` is not null, throws SomeException otherwise
The Elvis Operator is represented by a question mark followed by a colon: ?: and it can be used with this syntax:
first operand ?: second operand
It enables you to write a consise code, and works as such:
If first operand isn't null, then it will be returned. If it is null, then the second operand will be returned. This can be used to guarantee that an expression won't return a null value, as you'll provide a non-nullable value if the provided value is null.
For example(in Kotlin):
fun retrieveString(): String { //Notice that this type isn't nullable
val nullableVariable: String? = getPotentialNull() //This variable may be null
return nullableVariable ?: "Secondary Not-Null String"
}
In this case, if the computed value of getPotentialNull is not null, it will be returned by retrieveString; If it is null, the second expression "Secondary Not-Null String" will be returned instead.
Also note that the right-hand side expression is evaluated only if the left-hand side is null.
In Kotlin, you could use any expression as second operand, such as a throw Exception expression
return nullVariable ?: throw IllegalResponseException("My inner function returned null! Oh no!")
The name Elvis Operator comes from the famous American singer Elvis Presley. His hairstyle resembles a Question Mark
Source: Wojda, I. Moskala, M. Android Development with Kotlin. 2017. Packt Publishing
This is called the Elvis operator and it does... Exactly what you've described in your question. If its left hand side is a null value, it returns the right side instead, sort of as a fallback. Otherwise it just returns the value on the left hand side.
a ?: b is just shorthand for if (a != null) a else b.
Some more examples with types:
val x: String? = "foo"
val y: String = x ?: "bar" // "foo", because x was non-null
val a: String? = null
val b: String = a ?: "bar" // "bar", because a was null
Let's take a look at the defintion:
When we have a nullable reference r, we can say "if r is not null, use
it, otherwise use some non-null value x":
The ?: (Elvis) operator avoids verbosity and makes your code really concise.
For example, a lot of collection extension functions return null as fallback.
listOf(1, 2, 3).firstOrNull { it == 4 } ?: throw IllegalStateException("Ups")
?: gives you a way to handle the fallback case elgantely even if you have multiple layers of fallback. If so, you can simply chain multiply Elvis operators, like here:
val l = listOf(1, 2, 3)
val x = l.firstOrNull { it == 4 } ?: l.firstOrNull { it == 5 } ?: throw IllegalStateException("Ups")
If you would express the same with if else it would be a lot more code which is harder to read.
The elvis operator in Kotlin is used for null safety.
x = a ?: b
In the above code, x will be assigned the value of a if a is not null and b if a is null.
The equivalent kotlin code without using the elvis operator is below:
x = if(a == null) b else a
Simply we can say that, you have two hands. You want to know, is your left hand working right now?. If left hand not working, return empty else busy
Example for Java:
private int a;
if(a != null){
println("a is not null, Value is: "+a)
}
else{
println("a is null")
}
Example for Kotlin:
val a : Int = 5
val l : Int = if (a != null) a.length else "a is null"
Consider below example,
var myStr:String? = null
//trying to find out length of myStr, but it could be null, so a null check can be put as,
val len = if (myStr != null){
myStr.length
}
else{
-1
}
Using the elvis operator, the above code can be written in a single line
val len = myStr?.length ?: -1 // will return -1 if myStr is null else will return length
In addition to what has been already stated there is one good pattern that was not obvious for me, but which is common, e.g. you're writing a long function, but if something is null there is no sense to continue and the only thing you can do is to return from the function. Normally you'd write
something = expression
if (something == null) {
return
}
With elvis it becomes shorter and more elegant:
something = expression ?: return
Basically, if the left side of Elvis returns null for some reason, returns the right side instead.
i.e.
val number: Int? = null
println(number ?: "Number is null")
So, if number is NOT null, it will print number, otherwise will print "Number is null".
A little addition though is this
X = A ?: B
X will still be null if both A and B evaluate to null
Therefore, if you want X to always be non-null, make sure B is always a non-null or that B always evaluates to non-null if it's a function or expression.
I expected that the type of a variable is promoted to a non-null type after a not-null check (like in the Dart language).
val someMap = mapOf("a" to 0L)
val a = someMap['a'] // a is of type Long?
if (a != null) {
val b = a // b is of type Long? and not of type Long. Why?
}
Can someone explain why this is not the case? Just a matter of taste of the language designers?
Since there is smart-casting, it doesn't matter. It will allow you to use members of a or b inside the if statement without null-safe calls (?.) or null assertions (!!). You can also safely declare b to be a Long without the compiler complaining:
if (a != null) {
val b: Long = a
}
It is I think a design choice for how implicit types should be inferred that b's type must be explicitly declared if you want it to be considered non-nullable. This is only relevant if passing it to a function with generics, since there is smart-casting.
What you can do instead of explicit null check is using let{} as follows:
val someMap = mapOf('a' to 0L)
val a = someMap['a'] // a is of type Long?
a?.let {
val b = it // b is of type Long
}
It is called smart casting, basically Kotlin is smart enough to determine that variable can no longer be null after check. More detail and can be found here if you are interested
As to why, only the creators of kotlin can know. But what you can do is this if you want a Long instead of Long? there is this
val b = a!!
In Java, I'd write something like this:
if (foo != null && foo.bar()) { ...
However Kotlin complains that:
Smart cast to 'Foo' is impossible, because 'foo' is a mutable property that could have been changed by this time
I think it's saying what I wrote isn't thread-safe. However, in the context where I'm using it I know it is as this will always be invoked on a single thread.
Yes foo needs to be mutable. I realize that making foo a val would solve this but that is not possible here.
What's the correct idiom in Kotlin to handle this case?
In this case, a null-safe call returns a Boolean? so you can check if it equals true:
if (foo?.bar() == true) {
}
If you need non-null foo inside the conditional, then you can use the common ?.let idiom.
foo?.let { foo ->
if (foo.bar()) {
}
}
If you know it’s only accessed on this same thread, the !! operator would be safe after the null check, but ?.let is more idiomatic so easier to follow once you’re used to reading Kotlin.
The trick is to use Kotlin's excellent null-safety operators to avoid having to do redundant checks.
First, we use the safe-call operator.
foo?.bar()
This is a Boolean? (i.e. a nullable Boolean) which is null if foo is null, or the result of bar() if not. Now, a Boolean? is not a valid condition in an if statement, obviously, so we need to provide a "default" value of false. We do that using the amusingly-named Elvis operator
if (foo?.bar() ?: false) { ... }
If foo is null, then foo?.bar() is null, and ?: returns the value of the right-hand side, i.e. false. If foo is non-null, then foo?.bar() is the result of calling bar() on foo, and (assuming that result is also non-null), ?: returns the existing non-null Boolean value.
In case where the condition is not just a function call, e.g.
foo != null && foo.bar() > 0
you can use let or run:
if (foo.let { it != null && it.bar() > 0 }) { ... }
if (foo.run { this != null && bar() > 0 }) { ... }
Take a look at this kotlin one liner:
val nonNullArr : List<NonNullType> = nullArray.filter {it != null}
The compiler gives a type error at this line, saying that a list of nullables can't be assigned to a list of non-nulls. But the filter conditional makes sure that the list will only contain non null values. Is there something similar to !! operator that I can use in this situation to make this code compile?
It seems logical to assume that the compiler would take into account the predicate
it != null
and infer the type as
List<NonNullType>
but it does not.
There are 2 solutions:
val nonNullList: List<NonNullType> = nullableArray.filterNotNull()
or
val nonNullList: List<NonNullType> = nullableArray.mapNotNull { it }
As far as I know, you cannot convert nullable types into nonNull types by just verifying that they are not null. To achieve what you want, you need to manually map nullable values to non-null type by simply creating NonNull type object. For this you can use map extension function.
val nullableArray: Array<String?> = arrayOf("abc", "xyz", null, "efg")
val nonNullList: List<String> = nullableArray.filter { it != null }.map {
it.toString()
}
Or you can use filterNotNull() method as #forpas suggested in comments
val nonNullList: List<String> = nullableArray.filterNotNull()
Hope it helps you!
You can't assign a nullable type to a non-nullable type of value.
The type-matching maybe works when you assign a value, not after filter operation called.
// the type-matching works before `.filter` is called
val nonNullArr : List<NonNullType> = nullArray//.filter {it != null}
instead, if you want to do this without an error or without concerning the type. Remove the type from the val, so it goes like this
val nonNullArr = nullArray.filter {it != null}
Hope it helps
try using listOfNotNull instead of listOf(), it is equivalent to list.filterNotNull()
Let f() return a nullable value.
What I want to do is that
if f() is null, get an empty list,
else if f() is not null, get a list of the single item value.
In Scala, we can do something like this:
Option(f()).toList
or more verbosely
Option(f()).map(v => List(v)).getOrElse(List.empty)
In Kotlin, there is no Option (assuming no Funktionale library), and null does not have toList() unlike (None: Option) in Scala.
We have the Elvis operator, but null will be inside the listOf() function, so it will be
listOf(f() ?: /* What can I do here? */)
What we want for null is listOf(/*no argument */), but the Elvis operator requires an argument, so listOf(f() ?: ) will result in a compile error.
At least we can do
val v = f()
if (v == null) listOf() else listOf(v)
but it is a two liner.
Is there some expression for this?
Where I will use this expression is in the class's primary constructor default argument, so if it is not a one liner, it will be enclosed in brackets, so something like this:
class A(
val p1: List<V> = run {
val v = f()
if (v == null) listOf() else listOf(v)
},
val p2: ... = ...,
...)
This looks pretty ugly, isn't it?
EDIT
As #Naetmul pointed out, listOfNotNull(f()) is syntactically better to what I originally posted below, and also takes a variable number of arguments, for example
val myList = listOfNotNull(f(), g(), h())
will return a list of all the results that were not null.
I would use let here.
val myList = f()?.let { listOf(it) } ?: emptyList()
Use a ?. safe call on the return value of f(), then use let to run a code block. If f() is null, it won't run this block of code, resulting in a null value. Then we use the ?: elvis operator to fall back to an empty list.
Here it is broken up into several lines for a better understanding
val myValue = f()
val myList: List<Any>
if (myValue != null) {
myList = listOf(myValue)
} else {
myList = emptyList()
}
For this specific question, I can do
listOfNotNull(f())