Equals(item, null) or item == null

Joseph_Sturtevant_317 0
Viewed 65107

Is code that uses the static Object.Equals to check for null more robust than code that uses the == operator or regular Object.Equals? Aren't the latter two vulnerable to being overridden in such a way that checking for null doesn't work as expected (e.g. returning false when the compared value is null)?

In other words, is this:

if (Equals(item, null)) { /* Do Something */ }

more robust than this:

if (item == null) { /* Do Something */ }

I personally find the latter syntax easier to read. Should it be avoided when writing code that will handle objects outside the author's control (e.g. libraries)? Should it always be avoided (when checking for null)? Is this just hair-splitting?

robustness equals null c#
6 Answers

I ended up here when I was trying to compare the unique Id of objects that could themselves be null. Found it easier to just impute the missing data first, and then do the comparison.

Guid currentId = (Object1 == null) ? Guid.Empty : Object1.Id;
Guid newId = (Object2 == null) ? Guid.Empty : Object2.Id;
If (currentId == newId)
{
    //do happyface
}
else
{
   //do sadface
}
user_113438130
Related