And that improves readability, how? Don’t get me wrong, I’m a big fan of the Elvis operator, but chaining multiple null coalescing assignments into a one-line expression is a chore to decipher.
Because null checks are an extremely common operation to have to do, and this let’s your code read as just the business logic without these constant null checks breaking things up by multiple lines.
It’s only not readable to you because you’re not used to them. That’s the case for literally every bit of new programming syntax that comes along.
Exactly. Not adding efficient things because “they will be new” is just silly. We adapt, as programmers. We learned the language a first time, so we know what it means to learn things. Just like in English when you come upon a word you don’t understand, either you understand it by its context, or you just look it up. Simple as that.
A ??= BIs just
If (A == null) { A = B; }And that improves readability, how? Don’t get me wrong, I’m a big fan of the Elvis operator, but chaining multiple null coalescing assignments into a one-line expression is a chore to decipher.
By the way, you forgot to return the result.
What result? The result is A being assigned a value. That’s the result.
Because null checks are an extremely common operation to have to do, and this let’s your code read as just the business logic without these constant null checks breaking things up by multiple lines.
It’s only not readable to you because you’re not used to them. That’s the case for literally every bit of new programming syntax that comes along.
Exactly. Not adding efficient things because “they will be new” is just silly. We adapt, as programmers. We learned the language a first time, so we know what it means to learn things. Just like in English when you come upon a word you don’t understand, either you understand it by its context, or you just look it up. Simple as that.
By being used to it. As many have said, if you’re familiar with the syntax you have no problem parsing this.