Question

I have a class containing a number of properties, something like:

public class Update
{
    public int Quantity { get; set; }
    public decimal Price { get; set; }
    public string Name { get; set; }
}

Each instance of Update does not necessarily have each property set, and another part of the system needs to know which have been set, and which haven’t.

One option I’ve got is to make all the value types Nullable and so a null value would represent the concept of not being set. Whilst this would work, I don’t really like the idea of having some properties explicitly Nullable (the value types) and some nullable by virtue of being a reference type. The class definition would look ugly and I’m not convinced a null check is semantically the best approach.

I could create a class very similar to Nullable<T> that has no constraint on the T with an IsSet property. I prefer this option to using Nullable, but I’d still like to see if anyone has an alternative representation that’s better than the options I’ve suggested.

Answer 1

You really should stick to the preexisting idiom here. Use the built-in nullability.

I see your concern with nullability being different for value and ref types. Your workaround would work. But it is just a cosmetic change which gains you litte. I recommend that you change yourself instead of changing the code in this case. Try to fit yourself to the existing conventions.

Edit: Sometimes you need to be able to make a value optional in generic code. In this case you need to use some custom option type. By from experience I can tell that this is pretty nasty to use. It is not my solution of choice.