为什么 C# 要求您每次触发事件时都编写空检查?

问题描述

这对我来说似乎很奇怪——VB.NET 通过它的 RaiseEvent 关键字隐式地处理空检查.它似乎大大增加了围绕事件的样板数量，我看不出它提供了什么好处.

This seems odd to me -- VB.NET handles the null check implicitly via its RaiseEvent keyword. It seems to raise the amount of boilerplate around events considerably and I don't see what benefit it provides.

我确信语言设计者有充分的理由这样做..但我很好奇是否有人知道原因.

I'm sure the language designers had a good reason to do this.. but I'm curious if anyone knows why.

推荐答案

这当然是一个烦恼点.

当您编写访问类中类似字段的事件的代码时，您实际上是在访问该字段本身(以 C# 4 中的一些更改为模；我们暂时不去那里).

When you write code which accesses a field-like event within a class, you're actually accessing the field itself (modulo a few changes in C# 4; let's not go there for the moment).

所以，选项是:

• 特殊情况下的类似字段的事件调用，以便它们实际上并不直接引用该字段，而是添加了一个包装器

• 以不同的方式处理所有委托调用，例如:

Action<string> x = null;
x();

不会抛出异常.

当然，对于非无效委托(和事件)，这两种选择都会产生问题:

Of course, for non-void delegates (and events) both options raise a problem:

Func<int> x = null;
int y = x();

应该默默地返回0吗?(int 的默认值.)或者它实际上掩盖了一个错误(更有可能).让它默默地忽略您试图调用空委托的事实会有些不一致.在这种情况下会更奇怪，它不使用 C# 的语法糖:

Should that silently return 0? (The default value of an int.) Or is it actually masking a bug (more likely). It would be somewhat inconsistent to make it silently ignore the fact that you're trying to invoke a null delegate. It would be even odder in this case, which doesn't use C#'s syntactic sugar:

Func<int> x = null;
int y = x.Invoke();

基本上，无论您做什么，事情都会变得棘手且与语言的其余部分不一致.我也不喜欢它，但我不确定一个实用但一致的解决方案可能是什么......

Basically things become tricky and inconsistent with the rest of the language almost whatever you do. I don't like it either, but I'm not sure what a practical but consistent solution might be...

这篇关于为什么 C# 要求您每次触发事件时都编写空检查?的文章就介绍到这了，希望我们推荐的答案对大家有所帮助，也希望大家多多支持跟版网！