[英]Why do i need to put the null-coalescing operator in brackets?
I have recently noticed a curiosity (at least for me). 我最近注意到了一种好奇心(至少对我而言)。 I thought that the
null-coalescing operator
would take the precedence over any mathematical operation but obviously i was wrong. 我认为
null-coalescing operator
会优先于任何数学运算,但显然我错了。 I thought following two variables would have the same value at the end: 我认为以下两个变量在最后会有相同的值:
double? previousValue = null;
double? v1 = 1 + previousValue ?? 0;
double? v2 = 1 + (previousValue ?? 0);
But v2.Value
is (the desired) 1 whereas v1.Value
is still 0. Why? 但是
v2.Value
是(期望的)1而v1.Value
仍然是0.为什么?
v1
is 0 for the exact reason you mentioned: the null-coalescing operator actually has relatively low precedence. 由于您提到的确切原因,
v1
为0:null-coalescing运算符实际上具有相对较低的优先级。 This table shows exactly how low. 该表显示了究竟有多低。
So for the first expression, 1 + null
is evaluated first, and it evaluates to a null int?
那么对于第一个表达式,首先计算
1 + null
,并计算为null int?
, which then coalesces to 0. ,然后合并为0。
v2说,1加(如果previousValue == null将值0添加到1,则给出1.V1表示1加上null为空,所以让我们给出0。
声明:本站的技术帖子网页,遵循CC BY-SA 4.0协议,如果您需要转载,请注明本站网址或者原文地址。任何问题请咨询:yoyou2525@163.com.