17

The following testcase throws a null-reference exception, when it tries to assign Id to an object which is null, since the code is missing the "new R" before the object initializer.

Why is this not caught by the compiler? Why is it allowed, in which use-cases would this be a meaningful construct?

[TestClass]
public class ThrowAway
{
    public class H
    {
        public int Id { get; set; }
    }

    public class R
    {
        public H Header { get; set; }
    }

    [TestMethod]
    public void ThrowsException()
    {
        var request = new R
                      {
                          Header =
                          {
                              Id = 1
                          },
                      };
    }
}
Hugo Hallqvist
  • 173
  • 7

1 Answers1

19

The compiler doesn't give a warning because you could have:

public class R
{
    public H Header { get; set; }

    public R()
    {
        Header = new H();
    }
}

so Header could be initialized by someone/something. Solving if someone/something will initialize Header is a complex problem (probably similar to the Halting problem)... Not something that a compiler wants to solve for you :-)

From the C# specifications:

A member initializer that specifies an object initializer after the equals sign is a nested object initializer, i.e. an initialization of an embedded object. Instead of assigning a new value to the field or property, the assignments in the nested object initializer are treated as assignments to members of the field or property. Nested object initializers cannot be applied to properties with a value type, or to read-only fields with a value type.

We are in the case of nested initializer, and see the bolded part. I didn't know it.

Now, note that new R { } is, by C# spec, an 7.6.10.1 Object creation expressions followed by an object-initializer, while the Header = { } is a "pure" 7.6.10.2 Object initializers.

xanatos
  • 109,618
  • 12
  • 197
  • 280
  • 1
    Same question as to the another post here - why did it allow `Header = {Id = 1}`? This looks plain wrong anyway, doesn't it? – Andrei Jun 03 '15 at 13:07
  • @Andrei At least I explained the *Why is this not caught by the compiler?* :-) – xanatos Jun 03 '15 at 13:08
  • Sorry, I still don't get it. Not trying to argue, just very curious myself. Compiler should have failed on such syntax, no matter if there is initialization in ctor, right? – Andrei Jun 03 '15 at 13:10
  • @Andrei Found the part of C# spec that defines this case. My response was more in the tone of "why isn't there a warning" (and in fact my response starts with a *The compiler doesn't give a warning because you could have:*) – xanatos Jun 03 '15 at 13:11
  • Thanks xanatos, I think I can see why it can't warn or fail now. Thanks! – Hugo Hallqvist Jun 03 '15 at 13:26