I saw the following comment in a S.O. post, and I'm intrigued:
why don't you use if for null checks? a?.let{} ?: run{} is only appropriate in rare cases, otherwise it is not idiomatic – voddan May 15 '16 at 7:29 best way to null check in kotlin?
Why is that construct "only appropriate in rare cases"?
The lead engineer for Kotlin says,
run allows you to use multiple statements on the right side of an elvis operator https://stackoverflow.com/a/51241983/6656019
although I admit that's not actually endorsing it as idiomatic. Both of these posts seem to be from very well respected S.O. Kotlin contributors.
The post that inspired the original comment mentions that the let part of the expression is important if a is mutable. In that case, you'll need a?.let{} ?: run{} instead of if{} else {}.
I find I like the "let Elvis run" construct. Should I avoid it in most cases?
Thanks for any insight.
It's dangerous to conflate foo?.let { bar(it) } ?: baz() with if (foo != null) bar(foo) else baz().
Say you have a function: fun computeElements(): List<Int>? = emptyList()
Consider this code:
val maxElement = computeElements()?.let { it.max() } ?: return
println("Max element was $maxElement")
Compared to:
val list: List<Int>? = computeElements()
val maxElement = if (list != null) list.max() else return
println("Max element was $maxElement")
You may think these are two equivalent forms. However, if you run both, you'll see that the former does not print anything to stdout!
This is because it.max() returns null for an empty list (because there is no max element), which causes the right-hand side of the Elvis expression to be evaluated, and so the function returns early.
In short, ?.let { ... } ?: ... allows both branches of the "if-else" to be evaluated, which is dangerous. Aside from this form not being readable (if-else is universally understood, while let-run is not), subtle bugs can occur.
In that case, you'll need a?.let{} ?: run{} instead of if{} else {}
No, you can omit the run part of run { statement } and use a?.let{} ?: statement.
Should I avoid it in most cases?
You should use it when you need it. E.g. when you want to run multiple statements in that scenario. It is pointed out that that is a rare scenario. Often you will see just a single statement on the right hand side of an elvis operator.
And of course don't use it when you don't need it. Keep the code simple.
Related
Let's assume that I have two functions which do the same stuff.
First one:
fun doSomething() = someObject.getSomeData()
Second one:
fun doSomething(): SomeData {
return someObject.getSomeData()
}
Are there any technical differences between expression functions and standard function in Kotlin excluding the way how they look?
Is compiled output the same?
Are there any advantages using one instead another?
As #Sơn Phan says, they both compile to exactly the same bytecode.
So the differences are simply about conciseness. The expression form omits the braces and return; it also lets you omit the return type (using type inference as needed). As the question illustrates, the expression form can be shorter — and when all else is equal, shorter tends to be easier to read and understand.
So whether the expression form is appropriate is usually a matter of style rather than correctness. For example, this function could be on one line:
fun String.toPositiveIntegers() = split(",").mapNotNull{ it.toIntOrNull() }.filter{ it >= 0 }
But it's a bit long, and probably better to split it. You could keep the expression form:
fun String.toPositiveIntegers()
= split(",")
.mapNotNull{ it.toIntOrNull() }
.filter{ it >= 0 }
Or use a traditional function form:
fun String.toPositiveIntegers(): List<Int> {
return split(",")
.mapNotNull{ it.toIntOrNull() }
.filter{ it >= 0 }
}
(I tend to prefer the former, but there are arguments both ways.)
Similarly, I rather like using it when the body is a simple lambda, e.g.:
fun createMyObject() = MyObject.apply {
someConfig(someField)
someOtherConfig()
}
…but I expect some folk wouldn't.
One gotcha when using the expression form is the type inference. Generally speaking, in Kotlin it's good to let the compiler figure out the type when it can; but for function return values, that's not always such a good idea. For example:
fun myFun(): String = someProperty.someFunction()
will give a compilation error if the someFunction() is ever changed to return something other than a String — even a nullable String?. However:
fun myFun() = someProperty.someFunction()
…would NOT give a compilation error; it would silently change the function's return type. That can mask bugs, or make them harder to find. (It's not a very common problem, but I've hit it myself.) So you might consider specifying the return type, even though you don't need to, whenever there's a risk of it changing.
One particular case of this is when calling a Java function which doesn't have an annotation specifying its nullability. Kotlin will treat the result as a ‘platform type’ (which means it can't tell whether it's nullable); returning such a platform type is rarely a good idea, and IntelliJ has a warning suggesting that you specify the return type explicitly.
1. Compiled output
Yes the compiled output will be completely the same
2. Advantage
You usually use expression function when the body of a function is only one line of expression to make it a oneliner function. Its advantage mainly about making the code more concise. Imagine instead of all the brackets and return, you only need a = to make things done.
I'm pretty new with Kotlin and I'm trying to figure out Kotlin's scope functions.
My code looks like this:
with(something) {
when {
equals("test") -> var1 = "test123"
startsWith("test2") -> var2 = "test456"
contains("test3") -> myNullableVar?.let { it.var3 = "test789" }
}
}
So before I entered the third check with the .let function my with function does not need to be exhaustive (I'm not returning something, I'm only doing assignments). In my third check I'm using .let as a null-check ... but only for an assignment of it.var3 (if it is not null). I don't need to return anything while I know that Kotlin's .let function returns the result of the body by standard.
Nevertheless now my with/when needs to be exhaustive otherwise it won't compile anymore.
This got me thinking and trying out different things. I found these ways to solve this issue:
I can add an else to my with/when so it becomes exhaustive but actually I don't need an else and I don't want to use it in this case.
I can add another .let, so it looks like this: myNullableVar?.let { it.var3 = "test789" }.let{} .... but this looks kinda hacky to me. Is it supposed to work like this?
Use If(xy==null){...}else{...} stuff but I thought I can solve this with Kotlin differently
Because I'm new with Kotlin I'm not really sure how to handle this case properly. I would probably just go with my second idea because "it works". Or should I don't use .let for null-checks? Add another empty .let{}? Or did I not get the null-safety concept at all? I feel a little bit lost here. Thanks for any help.
This seems to be an unfortunate combination of features…
A when can be non-exhaustive only when it doesn't return a value. The problem is that the with() function does return a value. And since the when is at the bottom, its value is what gets returned, so in this case it must be exhaustive.
So why doesn't it insist on an else branch even if you omit the "test3" branch? That's because assignments don't yield a value. (They evaluate to Unit, which is Kotlin's special type for functions that don't return a useful value.) If every branch gives Unit, then Kotlin seems* to be happy to infer a default branch also giving Unit.
But the "test3" branch returns something else — the type of myNullableVar. So what type does the when infer? The nearest common supertype of that type and Unit, which is the top type Any?. And now it needs an explicit else branch!
So what to do?
You've found a few options, none of which is ideal. So here are a few more, ditto!
You could return an explicit Unit from that branch:
contains("test3") -> { myNullableVar?.let { it.var3 = "test789" }; Unit }
You could return an explicit Unit from the with():
contains("test3") -> myNullableVar?.let { it.var3 = "test789" }
}
Unit
}
You could give an explicit type for the with(). (It has two type parameters, so you'd need to give both, starting with the type of its parameter):
with<String, Unit>("abc") {
I haven't found a single obvious best answer, I'm afraid…
And to answer your last question: yes, ?.let{ is perfectly idiomatic and common for null checks. In this particular case, replacing it with an if happens to solve the type problem:
contains("test3") -> { if (myNullableVar != null) myNullableVar.var3 = "test789" }
But as well as being long-winded, if myNullableVar is a property and not a local variable, then it opens up a race condition (what if another thread sets it to null in between the test and the assignment?) so the compiler would complain — which is exactly why people use let instead!
(* I can't find a reference for this behaviour. Is there an official word on it?)
I am referring to the Null-Safety in Kotlin:
A colleague of mine writes always like:
bob ?: return
bob.department ?: return
bob.department.head ?: return
bob.department.head.name()
Readability is his argument. This is for me not very Kotlin like and more overelaborated. Of course I prefer:
bob?.department?.head?.name()
Some arguments/docs/links not using upper way would be very helpful.
I would like to know if there are any disadvantages using upper way?
Also, I can imagine that some compiler optimization won't work very well, doing the upper way?
EDIT:
According to SVN the history tells:
if (bob != null) {
if (bob.department != null) {
if (bob.department.head != null) bob.department.head.name()
}
}
Your version means something different: if any of the relevant values are null, your version evaluates to null without evaluating the rest of the expression, while your colleague's returns immediately without executing the rest of the function.
(Of course, if that's the end of the function anyway, the effect may be the same; we can't tell without seeing some context.)
So which one to prefer depends on whether a null value should abort everything following.
In general, though, your version is much more common in my experience. It also has two advantages: it's more concise (which, when all other things are equal, is a Good Thing™ IMHO) with less repetition (so following DRY); and it's less likely to cause surprises when someone later adds extra lines afterward, so they don't have to track back and find out why they're not being executed.
As for readability, lines like yours are a common idiom in Kotlin, and so developers really ought to find them readable enough. In fact, the ability to avoid long chains of tests like your colleague's (as are needed in Java) is one of the main benefits of the ?. safe-call operator!
There are some ways to fulfill a null-checking in Kotlin:
1.
if(myVar != null) {
foo(myVar)
}
2.
myVar?.let {
foo(it)
}
3.
myVar?.run {
foo(this)
}
What are the difference between these ways?
Are there any reasons (performance, best practice, code style etc.) why I should prefer on way over the other?
!! is to tell the compiler that I am sure the value of the variable is not null, and if it is null throw a null pointer exception (NPE) where as ?. is to tell the compiler that I am not sure if the value of the variable is null or not, if it is null do not throw any null pointer.
Another way of using a nullable property is safe call operator ?.
This calls the method if the property is not null or returns null if that property is null without throwing an NPE (null pointer exception).
nullableVariable?.someMethodCall()
All three code are behave same null check in operation-wise.
?. is used for chain operations.
bob?.department?.head?.name // if any of the properties in it is null it returns null
To perform a chain operation only for non-null values, you can use the safe call operator together with let
myVar?.let {
foo(it)
}
the above code is good for code style and performance
more details refer Null Safety
The ways 2 and 3 are more idiomatic for Kotlin. Both functions are quite similar. There is little difference with argument passing.
For example, we have a nullable variable:
var canBeNull: String? = null
When you working with T.run you work with extension function calling and you pass this in the closure.
canBeNull?.run {
println(length) // `this` could be omitted
}
When you call T.let you can use it like lambda argument it.
canBeNull?.let {
myString -> println(myString.length) // You could convert `it` to some other name
}
A good article about Kotlin standard functions.
All three are roughly equivalent.
The if case is more like most other languages, and so many developers may find it easier to read.
However, one difference is that the if case will read the value of myVar twice: once for the check, and again when passing it to foo(). That makes a difference, because if myVar is a property (i.e. something that could potentially be changed by another thread), then the compiler will warn that it could have been set to null after the check. If that's a problem (e.g. because foo() expects a non-null parameter), then you'll need to use one of the other cases.
For that reason, the let case has become fairly common practice in Kotlin. (The run case does just about the same thing, but for some reason isn't as popular for this sort of thing. I don't know why.)
Another way around it is to assign myVar to a temporary value, test that, and then use that. That's also more like other languages, but it's more verbose; many people prefer the conciseness of the let case — especially when myVar is actually a complicated expression.
The examples in your question don't show the true reason to decide.
First of all, since you're not using the return value of foo, you should use neither let nor run. Your choice is between also and apply.
Second, since you already have the result you want to null-check in a variable, the difference fades. This is a better motivating example:
complexCall(calculateArg1(), calculateArg2())?.also {
results.add(it)
}
as opposed to
val result = complexCall(calculateArg1(), calculateArg2())
if (result != null) {
results.add(result)
}
The second example declares an identifier, result, which is now available to the rest of the lexical scope, even though you're done with it in just one line.
The first example, on the other hand, keeps everything self-contained and when you go on reading the rest of the code, you are 100% confident that you don't have to keep in mind the meaning of result.
Kotlin have new features with NullPoint-Exception as Compare to Java.
Basically When we do Coding in Java , then we have to Check with !! in every Flied.
But in Kotlin, it is Easy way to Implement First
as Like,
Suppose, in Kotlin
var response:Json?=Null
response:Json?.let {
this part will handle automatic if response is Not Null....then this Block start Executing }?.run {
This is Nullable But, where we Can put Warring } So, I am Suggest you Guys to Start Work in Kotlin with this Features Provided by Kotlin.
(Flied)?.let { Not Null Value Comes Under }?.run{ Null Value Code }
This will Handle to NullPoint Exception or Protect You App for Crash
What you want to achieve
What you want to achieve is that the Kotlin compiler does a smart cast on the variable you are working with.
In all of your three examples, the compiler can do that.
Example:
if(myVar != null) {
foo(myVar) // smart cast: the compiler knows, that myVar can never be null here
}
The choice
Which one of the options to use, is really a matter of style. What you should not do is mix it up to often. Use one and stick to it.
You don't need to worry about performance since let and run are inlined (see inline function). This means that their code (body) is copied to the call site at compile time so there is no runtime overhead.
I'm new to Kotlin and there's a common pattern that I'm not sure how to deal with most correctly. Take this code, for example, which doesn't compile:
git_repo?.add().addFilepattern()
add() is a call in the JGit library which is purely Java, so its return type is AddCommand!.
I have two options:
git_repo?.add()!!.addFilepattern("test.txt")
and
git_repo?.add()?.addFilepattern("test.txt")
Both work fine and given that
I don't know the intricacies of the library implementation,
the documentation of the JGit library doesn't specify whether add() can return null, and
within this context I'd typically expect add() to not return a null
Which version is more idiomatically correct to write in Kotlin? It seems that this would be a fairly common issue to deal with since basically every non-Kotlin library would introduce this issue.
I would use the ?. safe operator and then put your own exception at the end after an ?: Elvis operator. This way you get a message that is meaningful. Using just !! isn't a very helpful message to someone down the road who has no idea what the intricacies were either.
val cmd = gitRepo.add()?.addFilepattern("test.txt") ?: throw IllegalStateException("assert: gitRepo.add() returned an unexpected null")
cmd.doSomething() // never is null guaranteed
If the value is every null you will have a custom error.
assert: gitRepo.add() returned an unexpected null
And after this line, you will not have to null check because the result of the expression is guaranteed never to be null.
If you inspect the code of the other library and ensure it would never ever be null no matter what, then a !! is appropriate. But if not sure, do one better with the custom message.
Note I dropped the first ?. from your example because I'm assuming git_repo itself is not nullable. Plus I renamed it not to have an underscore which isn't normal Kotlin naming convention.
If you are sure that git_repo will always return a value!! is fine in that case.
It is ugly but !! will always be there when you use Java libraries, and you can't avoid it.
The only reason i would use git_repo?.add()?.addFilepattern("test.txt"), would be if you are returning a value, and you want the value to be nullable so that your calling method can handle the nullable.
fun nullableMethod(): string? {
return git_repo?.add()?.addFilepattern("test.txt")
}
fun callingMethod() {
if(this.nullableMethod() != null) {
}
//Else
}
If you are guaranteed it is never going to null, use !!