I have a rudimentary question. ```fun foo() { ...

# getting-started

[lenqnr]

I have a rudimentary question.

fun foo() {
    getData()?.let { data ->
        doSomething(data)
    }
}

Is it equivalent to this?

fun foo() {
    val data = getData() ?: return
    doSomething(data)
}

I don't like adding more indentations, so came up with the second one. Is it OK?

[Dico]

Yes it does the same.

[lenqnr]

Thank you. I've never used like this, so it looked awkward a bit.

[Dico]

I also like this notation

val data = getData()
if (data != null) doSomething(data)

I recommend having braces for if statements always unless it's a one liner. Never do this, it is error prone (in my opinion and experience):

if (data != null)
    doSomething(data)

[arekolek]

You could have also done

fun foo() {
    getData()?.let(::doSomething)
}

[lenqnr]

Thank you guys. I'll give it a try if return is not needed.

[lenqnr]

In addition to the previous question, I wonder if this is a bad habit.

fun foo() {
    bar() ?: return
    doSomething1()
    ...
}

fun bar(): Unit? {
    try {
        doSomething2()
    }
    catch (e: SomeException) {
        return null
    }
    ...
    return Unit
}

So I can handle functions in the same way whether or not they return a value. But I'm not sure if it's fine.

[dalexander]

Explicitly returning Unit from Kotlin code seems like it's asking for trouble. This basically re-creates the "check the return value!" issue that the C stdlib has.

[Ruckus]

@lenqnr Why not just return a Boolean?

[Ruckus]

Then you can do if (!bar()) return

[Dico]

Yeah I wouldn't recommend using Unit?. I wonder if you can omit the last return statement

[lenqnr]

Maybe I loved syntactic sugar too much. But try... catch in every functions feels a little verbose.

[lenqnr]

@Dico I can't omit it, but I can in withContext block. I don't know why.

[Dico]

What