null and overloading == operator

[Andrew Gniadek]

hey,
if i overload the == operator then i have problems with checking if a
reference to an object is null. just wondering how i can get away with
it. because as soon as I overload it then i can't check for a null
reference within that implementation cuz it gets recursively called
resulting in a stack overflow.
operator overloading is still rough waters for me. mostly worked in java
so never had that option.
appreciate any help, thx.
A.

[Jon Skeet [C# MVP]]

Andrew Gniadek <ag******@hotmail.com> wrote:

if i overload the == operator then i have problems with checking if a
reference to an object is null. just wondering how i can get away with
it. because as soon as I overload it then i can't check for a null
reference within that implementation cuz it gets recursively called
resulting in a stack overflow.
operator overloading is still rough waters for me. mostly worked in java
so never had that option.

Either cast one or both sides to null to get identity comparison, or
use Object.ReferenceEquals.

--
Jon Skeet - <sk***@pobox.com>
http://www.pobox.com/~skeet
If replying to the group, please do not mail me too

[Bryan]

You could put it in a try..catch block and just catch the
NullPointerException that occurs if you reference the null.

Andrew Gniadek wrote:

hey,
if i overload the == operator then i have problems with checking if a
reference to an object is null. just wondering how i can get away with
it. because as soon as I overload it then i can't check for a null
reference within that implementation cuz it gets recursively called
resulting in a stack overflow.
operator overloading is still rough waters for me. mostly worked in java
so never had that option.
appreciate any help, thx.
A.

[Jon Skeet [C# MVP]]

Bryan <Bi********@centurytel.net> wrote:

You could put it in a try..catch block and just catch the
NullPointerException that occurs if you reference the null.

Yikes - while I'm not one of those who advocates avoiding exceptions at
all costs, that's a really horrible way of doing things. There are much
better solutions in this case, just as there's almost *always* a better
solution to avoiding a NullReferenceException than just catching it.

--
Jon Skeet - <sk***@pobox.com>
http://www.pobox.com/~skeet
If replying to the group, please do not mail me too