Related
Consider this nice utility extension function i wanted to use :
inline infix fun <T> T?.otherwise(other: () -> Unit): T? {
if (this != null) return this
other()
return null
}
It could be very useful for logging stuff when expressions evaluated to null for example:
val x: Any? = null
x?.let { doSomeStuff() } otherwise {Log.d(TAG,"Otherwise happened")}
but I see that it wont work for :
val x: Any? = null
x?.otherwise {Log.d(TAG,"Otherwise happened")}
see here for running example
Well when thinking about it i guess that makes sense that if x is null the ? makes the postfix not be executed, but i dont understand why the let in the first example is any different?
Is it possible to fix the utility to be more robust and work without having to have let in the chain?
First, you can simplify the implementation:
inline infix fun <T> T?.otherwise(other: () -> Unit): T? {
if (this == null) { other() }
return this
}
Or
inline infix fun <T> T?.otherwise(other: () -> Unit): T? =
also { if (it == null) other() }
When you do this:
null?.otherwise { println("Otherwise happened") }
?. means "execute if not null", so otherwise is not executed.
What you need to write is:
null otherwise { println("Otherwise happened") }
Note this is very similar to the ?: operator (as Vadik pointed out in the comments):
null ?: println("Otherwise happened")
The difference is that otherwise always returns the value on the left (the same as also), but ?: returns the value on the right when the value on the left is null.
In my opinion, otherwise is confusing, especially as it always returns the left value despite the name. You would be better to use the ?: operator. Or perhaps rename it to something like alsoIfNull.
The let example executes because, when you don't utilize the infix feature, it looks like this:
x?.let {}.otherwise {println("1")}
Notice that it's not ?.otherwise; therefore, it always executes.
So to use otherwise without let, you can omit the ?.
x.otherwise { ... }
x?.let { doSomeStuff() }.otherwise {Log.d(TAG,"Otherwise happened")}
// ⬇️
val value = if (x != null) {
doSomeStuff()
} else {
null
}
value.otherwise {Log.d(TAG,"Otherwise happened")}
x?.otherwise { Log.d(TAG,"Otherwise happened") }
// ⬇️
if (x != null) {
otherwise { Log.d(TAG,"Otherwise happened") }
} else {
null
}
?. means if the value is not null then execute the method and return the result otherwise return null
Essentially this is in the title. I have a value that could be null. If it is, I just want to exit with a message. If it's not null, then there's a whole slew of work I need to do with this value.
I've found similar, but not quite this exact situation. And it's the subtle difference that's driving me nuts. Here is my code in java:
if (value == null) {
print("error!");
return;
}
print(value);
doFunStuff(value);
etc(value);
All those methods using value require it to be non-null.
But I'm having a difficult time figuring this out in kotlin. With everything I try, the compiler still insists that value is still nullable and refuses to use it in the functions.
What is the kotlin way of doing this very common code flow?
If your methods truly have non-null parameters, the Kotlin compiler should be smart enough to do a smart cast to Object from Object?.
fun yourMethod(value: Object?) {
if (value == null) {
print("error!")
return
}
print(value) // Smart cast happens here
doFunStuff(value)
etc(value)
}
fun print(value: Object) {
// Implementation
}
fun doFunStuff(value: Object) {
// Implementation
}
fun etc(value: Object) {
// Implementation
}
But you can also force the conversion by using the !! operator (though in this case the compiler will tell you it's not necessary):
fun yourMethod(value: Object?) {
if (value == null) {
print("error!")
return
}
val nonNullValue = value!!
print(nonNullValue)
doFunStuff(nonNullValue)
etc(nonNullValue)
}
fun print(value: Object) {
// Implementation
}
fun doFunStuff(value: Object) {
// Implementation
}
fun etc(value: Object) {
// Implementation
}
If your value is a local variable or a function parameter, you won't have this problem, because the compiler will smart-cast it to not-null.
So, I'm assuming value in this case is a member property.
Option 1 is to copy it to a local variable to use in the function:
val value = value
if (value == null) {
print("error!")
return
}
print(value)
doFunStuff(value)
etc(value)
Option 2 is to use the let or also scope functions to do the same thing, but this might not be a good option here because so much code would become nested. This is more useful when you're only calling one or two functions with the object, in which case, you wouldn't even have to name it (just call it it).
value.let { value ->
if (value == null) {
print("error!")
return
}
print(value)
doFunStuff(value)
etc(value)
}
If your entire function works with this one property, you can avoid the nesting problem like this, if you don't mind it returning something besides Unit:
fun foo() = value.also { value ->
if (value == null) {
print("error!")
return
}
print(value)
doFunStuff(value)
etc(value)
}
Option 3 is to assert non-null every time you use it, but this is very ugly. This is only safe if you know the property is only ever accessed from the same thread this function is ever called on.
if (value == null) {
print("error!")
return
}
print(value!!)
doFunStuff(value!!)
etc(value!!)
Expanding on #Mehul's answer, this would only run the code in the let if the value was not null. If null, you could run the outside process and return from it.
value?.let { nonNullValue ->
print(nonNullValue);
doFunStuff(nonNullValue);
etc(nonNullValue);
}?: run { print("error!") ; return }
That said, since you are no longer needing the return to abort the function if null, you could simply do this and further clean it up replacing the lambda.
value?.let {
print(it);
doFunStuff(it);
etc(it);
}?: print("error!")
Well, have you already tried something like this and this is not what you expect?
value?.let { nonNullValue ->
print(nonNullValue);
doFunStuff(nonNullValue);
etc(nonNullValue);
}
basically the code inside let block will run only if the value isn't null.
In Kotlin is there an equivalent to the Swift code below?
if let a = b.val {
} else {
}
You can use the let-function like this:
val a = b?.let {
// If b is not null.
} ?: run {
// If b is null.
}
Note that you need to call the run function only if you need a block of code. You can remove the run-block if you only have a oneliner after the elvis-operator (?:).
Be aware that the run block will be evaluated either if b is null, or if the let-block evaluates to null.
Because of this, you usually want just an if expression.
val a = if (b == null) {
// ...
} else {
// ...
}
In this case, the else-block will only be evaluated if b is not null.
Let's first ensure we understand the semantics of the provided Swift idiom:
if let a = <expr> {
// then-block
}
else {
// else-block
}
It means this: "if the <expr> results in a non-nil optional, enter the then-block with the symbol a bound to the unwrapped value. Otherwise enter the else block.
Especially note that a is bound only within the then-block. In Kotlin you can easily get this by calling
<expr>?.also { a ->
// then-block
}
and you can add an else-block like this:
<expr>?.also { a ->
// then-block
} ?: run {
// else-block
}
This results in the same semantics as the Swift idiom.
My answer is totally a copy cat from the others. However, I cannot understand their expression easily. So I guess it would be nice to provide an more understandable answer.
In swift:
if let a = b.val {
//use "a" as unwrapped
}
else {
}
In Kotlin:
b.val?.let{a ->
//use "a" as unwrapped
} ?: run{
//else case
}
if let statement
Swift if let Optional Binding (so called if-let statement) is used to extract a non-optional value if one exists, or to do nothing if a value is nil.
Swift's if-let statement:
let b: Int? = 50
if let a: Int = b {
print("Good news!")
} else {
print("Equal to 'nil' or not set")
}
/* RESULT: Good news! */
In Kotlin, like in Swift, to avoid crashes caused by trying to access a null value when it’s not expected, a specific syntax (like b.let { } in second example) is provided for properly unwrapping nullable types:
Kotlin's equivalent1 of Swift's if-let statement:
val b: Int? = null
val a = b
if (a != null) {
println("Good news!")
} else {
println("Equal to 'null' or not set")
}
/* RESULT: Equal to 'null' or not set */
Kotlin’s let method, when used in combination with the safe-call operator ?:, provides a concise way to handle nullable expressions.
Kotlin's inline let function and Elvis Operator of Swift's nil coalescing operator:
val b: Int? = null
val a = b.let { nonNullable -> nonNullable } ?: "Equal to 'null' or not set"
println(a)
/* RESULT: Equal to 'null' or not set */
guard let statement
guard-let statement in Swift is simple and powerful. It checks for some condition and if it evaluates to be false, then the else statement executes which normally will exit a method.
Let's explore a Swift's guard-let statement:
let b: Int? = nil
func method() {
guard let a: Int = b else {
print("Equal to 'nil' or not set")
return
}
print("Good news!")
}
method()
/* RESULT: Equal to 'nil' or not set */
Kotlin's similar effect of Swift's guard-let statement:
Unlike Swift, in Kotlin, there is no guard statement at all. However, you can use the Elvis Operator – ?: for getting a similar effect.
val b: Int? = 50
fun method() {
val a = b ?: return println("Equal to 'null' or not set")
return println("Good news!")
}
method()
/* RESULT: Good news! */
there are two answers above, both got a lot acceptances:
str?.let{ } ?: run { }
str?.also{ } ?: run { }
Both seem to work in most of the usages, but #1 would fail in the following test:
#2 seems better.
Unlike Swift, Its not necessary to unwrap the optional before using it in Kotlin. We could just check if the value is non null and the compiler tracks the information about the check you performed and allows to use it as unwrapped.
In Swift:
if let a = b.val {
//use "a" as unwrapped
} else {
}
In Kotlin:
if b.val != null {
//use "b.val" as unwrapped
} else {
}
Refer Documentation: (null-safety) for more such use cases
Here's how to only execute code when name is not null:
var name: String? = null
name?.let { nameUnwrapp ->
println(nameUnwrapp) // not printed because name was null
}
name = "Alex"
name?.let { nameUnwrapp ->
println(nameUnwrapp) // printed "Alex"
}
Here's my variant, limited to the very common "if not null" case.
First of all, define this somewhere:
inline fun <T> ifNotNull(obj: T?, block: (T) -> Unit) {
if (obj != null) {
block(obj)
}
}
It should probably be internal, to avoid conflicts.
Now, convert this Swift code:
if let item = obj.item {
doSomething(item)
}
To this Kotlin code:
ifNotNull(obj.item) { item ->
doSomething(item)
}
Note that as always with blocks in Kotlin, you can drop the argument and use it:
ifNotNull(obj.item) {
doSomething(it)
}
But if the block is more than 1-2 lines, it's probably best to be explicit.
This is as similar to Swift as I could find.
There is a similar way in kotlin to achieve Swift's style if-let
if (val a = b) {
a.doFirst()
a.doSecond()
}
You can also assigned multiple nullable values
if (val name = nullableName, val age = nullableAge) {
doSomething(name, age)
}
This kind of approach will be more suitable if the nullable values is used for more than 1 times. In my opinion, it helps from the performance aspect because the nullable value will be checked only once.
source: Kotlin Discussion
I'm adding this answer to clarify the accepted answer because it's too big for a comment.
The general pattern here is that you can use any combination of the Scope Functions available in Kotlin separated by the Elvis Operator like this:
<nullable>?.<scope function> {
// code if not null
} :? <scope function> {
// code if null
}
For example:
val gradedStudent = student?.apply {
grade = newGrade
} :? with(newGrade) {
Student().apply { grade = newGrade }
}
The cleanest option in my opinion is this
Swift:
if let a = b.val {
} else {
}
Kotlin
b.val.also { a ->
} ?: run {
}
Swift if let statement in Kotlin
The short answer is use simple IF-ELSE as by the time of this comment there is no equivalent in Kotlin LET,
if(A.isNull()){
// A is null
}else{
// A is not null
}
we can get the same Unwraping syntax like Swift if let using inline fun
inline fun <T:Any?> T?.unwrap(callback: (T)-> Unit) : Boolean {
return if (this != null) {
this?.let(callback)
true
}else {
false
}
}
Uses: :
val name : String? = null
val rollNo : String? = ""
var namesList: ArrayList<String>? = null
if (name.unwrap { name ->
Log.i("Dhiru", "Name have value on it $name")
})else if ( rollNo.unwrap {
Log.i("Dhiru","Roll have value on it")
}) else if (namesList.unwrap { namesList ->
Log.i("Dhiru","This is Called when names list have value ")
}) {
Log.i("Dhiru","No Field have value on it ")
}
The problem with the Any?.let {} ?: run {} constructions is that:
It only allows for one non-null check per statement
If the let block returns null the run block is evaluated anyway
It's not possible to perform multiple checks in a switch/when style
A solution which tackles most of these problems is to define functions like the following:
private inline fun <A> ifNotNull(p1: A?, block: (A) -> Unit): Unit? {
if (p1 != null) {
return block.invoke(p1)
}
return null
}
private inline fun <A, B> ifNotNull(p1: A?, p2: B?, block: (A, B) -> Unit): Unit? {
if (p1 != null && p2 != null) {
return block.invoke(p1, p2)
}
return null
}
private inline fun <A, B, C> ifNotNull(p1: A?, p2: B?, p3: C?, block: (A, B, C) -> Unit): Unit? {
if (p1 != null && p2 != null && p3 != null) {
return block.invoke(p1, p2, p3)
}
return null
}
This would allow for a statement like:
ifNotNull(a, b) { a, b ->
// code when a, b are not null
} ?:
ifNotNull(c) { c ->
// code when a, b are null and c not null
} ?:
ifNotNull(d, e, f) { d, e, f ->
// code when a, b, c are null and d, e, f not null
} ?: run {
// code which should be performed if a, b, c, d, e and f are null
}
The only caveat is that continue and break statements are not supported if executed within a loop compared to Swift's if let equivalent.
Probably I am very late however the easiest way to unwrap and option is
yourOptionalString ?: return
this was all the following lines will have unwrapped string
If b is a member variable then this approach seems most readable to me:
val b = this.b
if (b == null) {
return
}
println("non nullable : ${b}")
This is also consistent with how it works in swift, where a new local variable shadows the member variable.
I am looking for an idiomatic way to return if not null a variable in Kotlin. For example, I would like something such as:
for (item in list) {
getNullableValue(item).? let {
return it
}
}
But it's not possible to return inside a let block in Kotlin.
Is there a good way to do this without having to do this:
for (item in list) {
val nullableValue = getNullableValue(item)
if (nullableValue != null) {
return nullableValue
}
}
Not sure if this would be called idiomatic, but you could do this:
val nullableValue = list.find { it != null }
if (nullableValue != null) {
return nullableValue
}
Edit:
Based on s1m0nw1's answer, you can probably reduce it to this:
list.find { it != null }?.let {
return it
}
It is possible to return from let, as you can read in the documentation:
The return-expression returns from the nearest enclosing function, i.e. foo. (Note that such non-local returns are supported only for lambda expressions passed to inline functions.)
let() is an inline function and therefore you automatically return from the enclosing function whenever you do return within let, like in this example:
fun foo() {
ints.forEach {
if (it == 0) return // nonlocal return from inside lambda directly to the caller of foo()
print(it)
}
}
To modify the behavior, "labels" can be used:
fun foo() {
ints.forEach lit# {
if (it == 0) return#lit
print(it)
}
}
The "right" idiomatic way of doing this is using the "first" method.
Example:
val x = listOf<Int?>(null, null, 3, null, 8).first { it != null }
His specific example would be
return list.first {getNullableValue(it) != null}
It could be something like:
for (item in list) {
getNullableValue(item)?.also {
return it
}
}
I am assuming the external loop is needed. If that is not the case, Ryba suggested solution should work.
Should I use double =, or triple =?
if(a === null) {
//do something
}
or
if(a == null) {
//do something
}
Similarly for 'not equals':
if(a !== null) {
//do something
}
or
if(a != null) {
//do something
}
A structural equality a == b is translated to
a?.equals(b) ?: (b === null)
Therefore when comparing to null, the structural equality a == null is translated to a referential equality a === null.
According to the docs, there is no point in optimizing your code, so you can use a == null and a != null
Note that if the variable is a mutable property, you won't be able to smart cast it to its non-nullable type inside the if statement (because the value might have been modified by another thread) and you'd have to use the safe call operator with let instead.
Safe call operator ?.
a?.let {
// not null do something
println(it)
println("not null")
}
You can use it in combination with the Elvis operator.
Elvis operator ?: (I'm guessing because the interrogation mark looks like Elvis' hair)
a ?: println("null")
And if you want to run a block of code
a ?: run {
println("null")
println("The King has left the building")
}
Combining the two
a?.let {
println("not null")
println("Wop-bop-a-loom-a-boom-bam-boom")
} ?: run {
println("null")
println("When things go null, don't go with them")
}
Kotlin ways of handling null
Secure Access Operation
val dialog : Dialog? = Dialog()
dialog?.dismiss() // if the dialog will be null,the dismiss call will be omitted
Let function
user?.let {
//Work with non-null user
handleNonNullUser(user)
}
Early exit
fun handleUser(user : User?) {
user ?: return //exit the function if user is null
//Now the compiler knows user is non-null
}
Immutable shadows
var user : User? = null
fun handleUser() {
val user = user ?: return //Return if null, otherwise create immutable shadow
//Work with a local, non-null variable named user
}
Default value
fun getUserName(): String {
//If our nullable reference is not null, use it, otherwise use non-null value
return userName ?: "Anonymous"
}
Use val instead of var
val is read-only, var is mutable. It’s recommended to use as many read-only properties as you can, they are thread-safe.
Use lateinit
Sometimes you can’t use immutable properties. For example, it happens on Android when some property is initialized in onCreate() call. For these situations, Kotlin has a language feature called lateinit.
private lateinit var mAdapter: RecyclerAdapter<Transaction>
override fun onCreate(savedInstanceState: Bundle?) {
super.onCreate(savedInstanceState)
mAdapter = RecyclerAdapter(R.layout.item_transaction)
}
fun updateTransactions() {
mAdapter.notifyDataSetChanged()
}
Both approaches generate the same bytecode so you can choose whatever you prefer.
Addition to #Benito Bertoli,
the combination is actually unlike if-else
"test" ?. let {
println ( "1. it=$it" )
} ?: let {
println ( "2. it is null!" )
}
The result is:
1. it=test
But if:
"test" ?. let {
println ( "1. it=$it" )
null // finally returns null
} ?: let {
println ( "2. it is null!" )
}
The result is:
1. it=test
2. it is null!
Also, if use elvis first:
null ?: let {
println ( "1. it is null!" )
} ?. let {
println ( "2. it=$it" )
}
The result is:
1. it is null!
2. it=kotlin.Unit
Check useful methods out, it could be useful:
/**
* Performs [R] when [T] is not null. Block [R] will have context of [T]
*/
inline fun <T : Any, R> ifNotNull(input: T?, callback: (T) -> R): R? {
return input?.let(callback)
}
/**
* Checking if [T] is not `null` and if its function completes or satisfies to some condition.
*/
inline fun <T: Any> T?.isNotNullAndSatisfies(check: T.() -> Boolean?): Boolean{
return ifNotNull(this) { it.run(check) } ?: false
}
Below is possible example how to use those functions:
var s: String? = null
// ...
if (s.isNotNullAndSatisfies{ isEmpty() }{
// do something
}
I want to respond to answers of #Benito Bertoli and #BingLi224 and provide imho correct solution.
Problem is with using let, because result of let is it's last expression. You just want to pass the same thing as is passed into it, so also is a better solution. At the same time, after using elvis operator, let is impossible to use, because there is no object to call extension function to so I am using run (functional version). More on that in the scope functions official documentation
Another downside of this compared to using if/when is not being able to use this as an expression so I wouldn't recommend using it :-)
Final code:
"test"?.also {
println("1. it=$it")
} ?: run {
println("2. it is null!")
}
"test"?.also {
println("1. it=$it")
null
} ?: run {
println("2. it is null!")
}
null?.also {
println("1. it is null!")
} ?: run {
println("2. it is null")
}
null?.also {
println("1. it is null!")
null
} ?: run {
println("2. it is null")
}
And output:
1. it=test
1. it=test
2. it is null
2. it is null