I have a lambda expression which accepts, a
int? (nullable integer),
which returns value if value exists or
Func<int?, object> getId = id => id.HasValue ? id.Value : (object)DBNull.Value;
The goal here is that, I want to make that expression slightly a bit more generic so that I can pass any nullable types like,
So here is a non-functional code I was starting off with, but not sure where to specify nullable's type.
int? imageId; DateTime? actionDate; Func<Nullable<T>, object> getValue = id => id.HasValue ? id.Value : (object) DBNull.Value; SaveImage(getValue(imageId), getValue(actionDate));
Is it possible to specify generic type or should I create a named function to do so?
Since the purpose of the question is to use a lambda expression, here is a solution. It takes a different route by using weak typing instead of the proposed strong typing, but accomplishes the same thing nonetheless.
// A lambda solution Func<object, object> fnGetValue = v => ReferenceEquals(v, null) ? DBNull.Value : v; // Sample usage int? one = 1; int? two = null; object o1 = fnGetValue(one); // gets 1 object o2 = fnGetValue(two); // gets DBNull
Edit: This loose typing works because the data type of the lambda argument v is of the struct itself and is not the Nullable type wrapper. Apparently the Nullable value that the caller uses has been resolved or 'unwrapped' by the time it hits the lambda argument and the lambda argument reveals a struct value or null; the Nullable wrapper is nowhere to be seen at this point (or as far as I can find). This behaviour can be proved by putting a debug breakpoint in the lambda at v and inspecting its value. The good side effect of this behaviour is the lambda works equally well for both Nullable and non-Nullable types -- it's not restricted.