I have a struct which takes 3 named parameters in to the constructor...
public struct MyData
{
private readonly double _value1;
private readonly double _value2;
private readonly double _value3;
public MyData(
double value1 = 1.0,
double value2 = 2.0,
double value3 = 3.0)
{
_value1 = value1;
_value2 = value2;
_value3 = value3;
}
}
The method call that creates the class receives in three nullable doubles which I want to use to create the MyData class only if the nullable doubles are not null...
public MyData CreateMyData(double? value1, double? value2, double? value3)
{
MyData myData;
if (value1.HasValue)
{
if (value2.HasValue)
{
if (value3.HasValue)
{
myData = new MyData(value1, value2, value3);
}
else
{
myData = new MyData(value1, value2);
}
}
else
{
if (value3.HasValue)
{
myData = new MyData(value1, value3: value3);
}
else
{
myData = new MyData(value1);
}
}
}
else
{
if (value2.HasValue)
{
if (value3.HasValue)
{
myData = new MyData(value2: value2, value3: value3);
}
else
{
myData = new MyData(value2: value2);
}
}
else
{
if (value3.HasValue)
{
myData = new MyData(value3: value3);
}
else
{
myData = new MyData();
}
}
}
return myData;
}
Is there a nicer way to write this method without modifying the MyData class? I.e. Can I conditionally pass named parameters or can I pass an indicator to represent the default named parameter value?
public MyData(
double? value1 = null,
double? value2 = null,
double? value3 = null)
{
_value1 = value1 ?? 1.0;
_value2 = value2 ?? 2.0;
_value3 = value3 ?? 3.0;
}
This way, you can pass the null
s directly and won't suffer from the combinatorial explosion.
Also, if you ever decide to change the defaults, it would work even without recompiling all users of this code.