So you don t have a noop This is basically the same as doing kotlinlang #announcements

Channels

100daysofcode

100daysofkotlin

100daysofkotlin-2021

androidgithubprojects

cincinnati-user-group

competitive-programming

event21-community-content

java-to-kotlin-refactoring

jvm-ir-backend-feedback

kotlin-multiplatform-contest

kotlinultimatechallenge

myndocs-oauth2-server

naming

navigation-architecture-component

practical-functional-programming

proguard

prozis-android-backup

refactoring-to-kotlin

russian-kotlinasfirst

skia-wasm-interop-temp

stayhungrystayfoolish

swagger-gradle-codegen

tricity-kotlin-user-group

Title

robin

02/22/2017, 12:05 PM

So you don't have a noop. This is basically the same as doing:

val unwrapped = optional
if(unwrapped != null) { doSmth() }
else { doSmthElse() }

mg6maciej

02/22/2017, 12:09 PM

robin: I like this version more!

robin

02/22/2017, 12:10 PM

Yeah me too, actually... The elvis operator can make stuff obscure at times.

The

?.let

notation is only preferrable to an old-fashioned null check if the variable in question is non-local so you need an immutable local copy and you don't need an else-branch, imo.

Andreas Sinz

02/22/2017, 12:26 PM

@robin it is not the same. if

doSometh()

returns null,

doSmthElse()

will be called too

robin

02/22/2017, 12:28 PM

@Andreas Sinz You're correct. I was implying that doSometh() was just of Unit return type and therefore couldn't return null. If that's not the case you have to get around that.

#announcements Join Slack