Type int? vs type intNullable<int> vs. int? - Is there any difference?How is the boxing/unboxing behavior of Nullable<T> possible?Cast int to enum in C#Create Generic method constraining T to an EnumRandom number generator only generating one random numberUsing LINQ to remove elements from a List<T>Get int value from enum in C#Type Checking: typeof, GetType, or is?Distinct() with lambda?How do I generate a random int number?Call one constructor from anotherTry-catch speeding up my code?

How can I make my BBEG immortal short of making them a Lich or Vampire?

Fencing style for blades that can attack from a distance

Method of fabrication patents, Is it okay to import from abroad?

Why was the small council so happy for Tyrion to become the Master of Coin?

Why doesn't H₄O²⁺ exist?

What does "Puller Prush Person" mean?

Writing rule stating superpower from different root cause is bad writing

The Clique vs. Independent Set Problem

A newer friend of my brother's gave him a load of baseball cards that are supposedly extremely valuable. Is this a scam?

When a company launches a new product do they "come out" with a new product or do they "come up" with a new product?

Is it important to consider tone, melody, and musical form while writing a song?

Why "Having chlorophyll without photosynthesis is actually very dangerous" and "like living with a bomb"?

How to add double frame in tcolorbox?

Replacing matching entries in one column of a file by another column from a different file

How much RAM could one put in a typical 80386 setup?

Why is consensus so controversial in Britain?

What does it mean to describe someone as a butt steak?

What defenses are there against being summoned by the Gate spell?

In a 5 years PhD, is it possible to get a postdoc position with one publication? I can really use some advice

How can I make a cone from a cube and view the cube with different angles?

How to calculate partition Start End Sector?

Languages that we cannot (dis)prove to be Context-Free

How does one intimidate enemies without having the capacity for violence?

How is it possible to have an ability score that is less than 3?



Type int? vs type int


Nullable<int> vs. int? - Is there any difference?How is the boxing/unboxing behavior of Nullable<T> possible?Cast int to enum in C#Create Generic method constraining T to an EnumRandom number generator only generating one random numberUsing LINQ to remove elements from a List<T>Get int value from enum in C#Type Checking: typeof, GetType, or is?Distinct() with lambda?How do I generate a random int number?Call one constructor from anotherTry-catch speeding up my code?






.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty height:90px;width:728px;box-sizing:border-box;








39















I've this comparison which equals false as expected



bool eq = typeof(int?).Equals(typeof(int));


now I have this code



List<object> items = new List<object>() (int?)123 ;
int result = items.OfType<int>().FirstOrDefault();


but this returns 123 - anyway that value is of type int?



How can this be?










share|improve this question






















  • int? boxed as int , and basically every Nullable type, Edit : Marc Gravell have the full answer

    – styx
    Mar 27 at 8:30












  • Related post about nullable type: stackoverflow.com/questions/4028830/…. This is called as "type lifting".

    – Tetsuya Yamamoto
    Mar 27 at 8:32











  • Before reading this topic I wouldn't even guess that even List<int?> already holds just int types. Proof

    – Sinatr
    Mar 27 at 8:46






  • 7





    @Sinatr no, that is incorrect; List<int?> holds int?. The important distinction in this example is the use of List<object>. What you're seeing in that "proof" is something very different; GetType() on any T? either returns the T, or throws a NRE. It never returns T? - better example: dotnetfiddle.net/3Gy3Fa - and as for why: because GetType() is non-virtual, it cannot be overridden, and thus calling GetType() is a boxing operation (even if used via "constrained call"). And when you box a T?, you either get a T as an object, or a null.

    – Marc Gravell
    Mar 27 at 8:49












  • @TetsuyaYamamoto That is not a relevant link. How is the boxing/unboxing behavior of Nullable<T> possible? is.

    – GSerg
    Mar 27 at 11:17

















39















I've this comparison which equals false as expected



bool eq = typeof(int?).Equals(typeof(int));


now I have this code



List<object> items = new List<object>() (int?)123 ;
int result = items.OfType<int>().FirstOrDefault();


but this returns 123 - anyway that value is of type int?



How can this be?










share|improve this question






















  • int? boxed as int , and basically every Nullable type, Edit : Marc Gravell have the full answer

    – styx
    Mar 27 at 8:30












  • Related post about nullable type: stackoverflow.com/questions/4028830/…. This is called as "type lifting".

    – Tetsuya Yamamoto
    Mar 27 at 8:32











  • Before reading this topic I wouldn't even guess that even List<int?> already holds just int types. Proof

    – Sinatr
    Mar 27 at 8:46






  • 7





    @Sinatr no, that is incorrect; List<int?> holds int?. The important distinction in this example is the use of List<object>. What you're seeing in that "proof" is something very different; GetType() on any T? either returns the T, or throws a NRE. It never returns T? - better example: dotnetfiddle.net/3Gy3Fa - and as for why: because GetType() is non-virtual, it cannot be overridden, and thus calling GetType() is a boxing operation (even if used via "constrained call"). And when you box a T?, you either get a T as an object, or a null.

    – Marc Gravell
    Mar 27 at 8:49












  • @TetsuyaYamamoto That is not a relevant link. How is the boxing/unboxing behavior of Nullable<T> possible? is.

    – GSerg
    Mar 27 at 11:17













39












39








39


3






I've this comparison which equals false as expected



bool eq = typeof(int?).Equals(typeof(int));


now I have this code



List<object> items = new List<object>() (int?)123 ;
int result = items.OfType<int>().FirstOrDefault();


but this returns 123 - anyway that value is of type int?



How can this be?










share|improve this question














I've this comparison which equals false as expected



bool eq = typeof(int?).Equals(typeof(int));


now I have this code



List<object> items = new List<object>() (int?)123 ;
int result = items.OfType<int>().FirstOrDefault();


but this returns 123 - anyway that value is of type int?



How can this be?







c# casting






share|improve this question













share|improve this question











share|improve this question




share|improve this question










asked Mar 27 at 8:27









Dr. SnailDr. Snail

768828




768828












  • int? boxed as int , and basically every Nullable type, Edit : Marc Gravell have the full answer

    – styx
    Mar 27 at 8:30












  • Related post about nullable type: stackoverflow.com/questions/4028830/…. This is called as "type lifting".

    – Tetsuya Yamamoto
    Mar 27 at 8:32











  • Before reading this topic I wouldn't even guess that even List<int?> already holds just int types. Proof

    – Sinatr
    Mar 27 at 8:46






  • 7





    @Sinatr no, that is incorrect; List<int?> holds int?. The important distinction in this example is the use of List<object>. What you're seeing in that "proof" is something very different; GetType() on any T? either returns the T, or throws a NRE. It never returns T? - better example: dotnetfiddle.net/3Gy3Fa - and as for why: because GetType() is non-virtual, it cannot be overridden, and thus calling GetType() is a boxing operation (even if used via "constrained call"). And when you box a T?, you either get a T as an object, or a null.

    – Marc Gravell
    Mar 27 at 8:49












  • @TetsuyaYamamoto That is not a relevant link. How is the boxing/unboxing behavior of Nullable<T> possible? is.

    – GSerg
    Mar 27 at 11:17

















  • int? boxed as int , and basically every Nullable type, Edit : Marc Gravell have the full answer

    – styx
    Mar 27 at 8:30












  • Related post about nullable type: stackoverflow.com/questions/4028830/…. This is called as "type lifting".

    – Tetsuya Yamamoto
    Mar 27 at 8:32











  • Before reading this topic I wouldn't even guess that even List<int?> already holds just int types. Proof

    – Sinatr
    Mar 27 at 8:46






  • 7





    @Sinatr no, that is incorrect; List<int?> holds int?. The important distinction in this example is the use of List<object>. What you're seeing in that "proof" is something very different; GetType() on any T? either returns the T, or throws a NRE. It never returns T? - better example: dotnetfiddle.net/3Gy3Fa - and as for why: because GetType() is non-virtual, it cannot be overridden, and thus calling GetType() is a boxing operation (even if used via "constrained call"). And when you box a T?, you either get a T as an object, or a null.

    – Marc Gravell
    Mar 27 at 8:49












  • @TetsuyaYamamoto That is not a relevant link. How is the boxing/unboxing behavior of Nullable<T> possible? is.

    – GSerg
    Mar 27 at 11:17
















int? boxed as int , and basically every Nullable type, Edit : Marc Gravell have the full answer

– styx
Mar 27 at 8:30






int? boxed as int , and basically every Nullable type, Edit : Marc Gravell have the full answer

– styx
Mar 27 at 8:30














Related post about nullable type: stackoverflow.com/questions/4028830/…. This is called as "type lifting".

– Tetsuya Yamamoto
Mar 27 at 8:32





Related post about nullable type: stackoverflow.com/questions/4028830/…. This is called as "type lifting".

– Tetsuya Yamamoto
Mar 27 at 8:32













Before reading this topic I wouldn't even guess that even List<int?> already holds just int types. Proof

– Sinatr
Mar 27 at 8:46





Before reading this topic I wouldn't even guess that even List<int?> already holds just int types. Proof

– Sinatr
Mar 27 at 8:46




7




7





@Sinatr no, that is incorrect; List<int?> holds int?. The important distinction in this example is the use of List<object>. What you're seeing in that "proof" is something very different; GetType() on any T? either returns the T, or throws a NRE. It never returns T? - better example: dotnetfiddle.net/3Gy3Fa - and as for why: because GetType() is non-virtual, it cannot be overridden, and thus calling GetType() is a boxing operation (even if used via "constrained call"). And when you box a T?, you either get a T as an object, or a null.

– Marc Gravell
Mar 27 at 8:49






@Sinatr no, that is incorrect; List<int?> holds int?. The important distinction in this example is the use of List<object>. What you're seeing in that "proof" is something very different; GetType() on any T? either returns the T, or throws a NRE. It never returns T? - better example: dotnetfiddle.net/3Gy3Fa - and as for why: because GetType() is non-virtual, it cannot be overridden, and thus calling GetType() is a boxing operation (even if used via "constrained call"). And when you box a T?, you either get a T as an object, or a null.

– Marc Gravell
Mar 27 at 8:49














@TetsuyaYamamoto That is not a relevant link. How is the boxing/unboxing behavior of Nullable<T> possible? is.

– GSerg
Mar 27 at 11:17





@TetsuyaYamamoto That is not a relevant link. How is the boxing/unboxing behavior of Nullable<T> possible? is.

– GSerg
Mar 27 at 11:17












3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes


















53














Nullable types have special "boxing" rules; "boxing" is when a value-type is treated as object, as per your code. Unlike regular value-types, a nullable value-type is boxed either as null (regular null, no type), or as the non-nullable type (the T in T?). So: an int? is boxed as an int, not an int?. Then when you use OfType<int>() on it, you get all the values that are int, which is: the single value you passed in, since it is of type int.






share|improve this answer























  • phew ok thank you for that explanaion. Is that C# basic knowledge?

    – Dr. Snail
    Mar 27 at 8:30






  • 14





    @Dr.Snail "basic" is relative / subjective, and I'd wager that a good percentage of developers never have a need to know that nuance; it is useful context if you're dealing with boxing, though... and technically it isn't really C# knowledge, but rather: .NET knowledge (it would apply to all languages)

    – Marc Gravell
    Mar 27 at 8:31







  • 5





    @Sinatr you can't - the list never contains int? - it only contains int because of the boxing rules on nullable types

    – Marc Gravell
    Mar 27 at 8:34







  • 1





    @KyleJohnson you added a nullable int to the list. Naively, if nullable ints and ints are different things, you'd expect asking for all the ints in the list to return nothing. There are languages that do it that way, but C# has chosen to do it differently.

    – mbrig
    Mar 27 at 21:24






  • 1





    (and yes, my first sentence there is technically wrong. The nullable int never got added to the list. But if you don't know what's happening here, that's what it looks like is happening)

    – mbrig
    Mar 27 at 21:26


















8














A nullable value type is boxed by the following rules:



  • If HasValue returns false, the null reference is produced.

  • If HasValue returns true, a value of the underlying value type T is
    boxed, not the instance of nullable.


In your example second rule has been followed as you have value, e.g.
var i = (object)(int?)123;






share|improve this answer
































    3














    It is a bit late, but beside of Marc's answer to your question, I want to give some additional information about Nullable value types in CLR.



    The CLR has built-in support for nullable value types. This special support is provided for boxing, unboxing, calling GetType, calling interface methods.



    For example, let's check GetType():



    Int32? x = 5;
    Console.WriteLine(x.GetType());


    What you think it will print to the console?
    System.Nullable<Int32? Not, the result is System.Int32.



    Or, let's check boxing, which you noted in your question:



    Int32? n =5;
    Object o = n;
    Console.WriteLine("o's type=0", o.GetType()); // "System.Int32"


    The rule is that:




    When the CLR is boxing a Nullable instance, it checks to see if it
    is null, and if so, the CLR doesn’t actually box anything, and null is
    returned. If the nullable instance is not null, the CLR takes the
    value out of the nullable instance and boxes it. In other words, a
    Nullable with a value of 5 is boxed into a boxed-Int32 with a
    value of 5.




    And, at the end I want to explain how CLR add special support for calling interface methods from Nullable Types.
    Let's take a look to that:



    Int32? n = 5;
    Int32 result = ((IComparable) n).CompareTo(5); // Compiles & runs OK
    Console.WriteLine(result); // 0


    In the preceding code, I’m casting n, a Nullable<Int32>, to IComparable<Int32>, an interface
    type. However, the Nullable<T> type does not implement the IComparable<Int32> interface as
    Int32 does. The C# compiler allows this code to compile anyway.






    share|improve this answer

























    • So, nullables have special treatment by the compiler? I couldn't implement these rules for my own type?

      – Markonius
      yesterday






    • 1





      @Markonius For example you can not override GetType for your own type to lie about the real type of your object. Because, GetType is non-virtual.

      – Farhad Jabiyev
      yesterday











    Your Answer






    StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function ()
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function ()
    StackExchange.snippets.init();
    );
    );
    , "code-snippets");

    StackExchange.ready(function()
    var channelOptions =
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "1"
    ;
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
    createEditor();
    );

    else
    createEditor();

    );

    function createEditor()
    StackExchange.prepareEditor(
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
    convertImagesToLinks: true,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: 10,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    imageUploader:
    brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
    contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
    allowUrls: true
    ,
    onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    );



    );













    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function ()
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f55372675%2ftype-int-vs-type-int%23new-answer', 'question_page');

    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    3 Answers
    3






    active

    oldest

    votes








    3 Answers
    3






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes









    53














    Nullable types have special "boxing" rules; "boxing" is when a value-type is treated as object, as per your code. Unlike regular value-types, a nullable value-type is boxed either as null (regular null, no type), or as the non-nullable type (the T in T?). So: an int? is boxed as an int, not an int?. Then when you use OfType<int>() on it, you get all the values that are int, which is: the single value you passed in, since it is of type int.






    share|improve this answer























    • phew ok thank you for that explanaion. Is that C# basic knowledge?

      – Dr. Snail
      Mar 27 at 8:30






    • 14





      @Dr.Snail "basic" is relative / subjective, and I'd wager that a good percentage of developers never have a need to know that nuance; it is useful context if you're dealing with boxing, though... and technically it isn't really C# knowledge, but rather: .NET knowledge (it would apply to all languages)

      – Marc Gravell
      Mar 27 at 8:31







    • 5





      @Sinatr you can't - the list never contains int? - it only contains int because of the boxing rules on nullable types

      – Marc Gravell
      Mar 27 at 8:34







    • 1





      @KyleJohnson you added a nullable int to the list. Naively, if nullable ints and ints are different things, you'd expect asking for all the ints in the list to return nothing. There are languages that do it that way, but C# has chosen to do it differently.

      – mbrig
      Mar 27 at 21:24






    • 1





      (and yes, my first sentence there is technically wrong. The nullable int never got added to the list. But if you don't know what's happening here, that's what it looks like is happening)

      – mbrig
      Mar 27 at 21:26















    53














    Nullable types have special "boxing" rules; "boxing" is when a value-type is treated as object, as per your code. Unlike regular value-types, a nullable value-type is boxed either as null (regular null, no type), or as the non-nullable type (the T in T?). So: an int? is boxed as an int, not an int?. Then when you use OfType<int>() on it, you get all the values that are int, which is: the single value you passed in, since it is of type int.






    share|improve this answer























    • phew ok thank you for that explanaion. Is that C# basic knowledge?

      – Dr. Snail
      Mar 27 at 8:30






    • 14





      @Dr.Snail "basic" is relative / subjective, and I'd wager that a good percentage of developers never have a need to know that nuance; it is useful context if you're dealing with boxing, though... and technically it isn't really C# knowledge, but rather: .NET knowledge (it would apply to all languages)

      – Marc Gravell
      Mar 27 at 8:31







    • 5





      @Sinatr you can't - the list never contains int? - it only contains int because of the boxing rules on nullable types

      – Marc Gravell
      Mar 27 at 8:34







    • 1





      @KyleJohnson you added a nullable int to the list. Naively, if nullable ints and ints are different things, you'd expect asking for all the ints in the list to return nothing. There are languages that do it that way, but C# has chosen to do it differently.

      – mbrig
      Mar 27 at 21:24






    • 1





      (and yes, my first sentence there is technically wrong. The nullable int never got added to the list. But if you don't know what's happening here, that's what it looks like is happening)

      – mbrig
      Mar 27 at 21:26













    53












    53








    53







    Nullable types have special "boxing" rules; "boxing" is when a value-type is treated as object, as per your code. Unlike regular value-types, a nullable value-type is boxed either as null (regular null, no type), or as the non-nullable type (the T in T?). So: an int? is boxed as an int, not an int?. Then when you use OfType<int>() on it, you get all the values that are int, which is: the single value you passed in, since it is of type int.






    share|improve this answer













    Nullable types have special "boxing" rules; "boxing" is when a value-type is treated as object, as per your code. Unlike regular value-types, a nullable value-type is boxed either as null (regular null, no type), or as the non-nullable type (the T in T?). So: an int? is boxed as an int, not an int?. Then when you use OfType<int>() on it, you get all the values that are int, which is: the single value you passed in, since it is of type int.







    share|improve this answer












    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer










    answered Mar 27 at 8:28









    Marc GravellMarc Gravell

    794k19821612565




    794k19821612565












    • phew ok thank you for that explanaion. Is that C# basic knowledge?

      – Dr. Snail
      Mar 27 at 8:30






    • 14





      @Dr.Snail "basic" is relative / subjective, and I'd wager that a good percentage of developers never have a need to know that nuance; it is useful context if you're dealing with boxing, though... and technically it isn't really C# knowledge, but rather: .NET knowledge (it would apply to all languages)

      – Marc Gravell
      Mar 27 at 8:31







    • 5





      @Sinatr you can't - the list never contains int? - it only contains int because of the boxing rules on nullable types

      – Marc Gravell
      Mar 27 at 8:34







    • 1





      @KyleJohnson you added a nullable int to the list. Naively, if nullable ints and ints are different things, you'd expect asking for all the ints in the list to return nothing. There are languages that do it that way, but C# has chosen to do it differently.

      – mbrig
      Mar 27 at 21:24






    • 1





      (and yes, my first sentence there is technically wrong. The nullable int never got added to the list. But if you don't know what's happening here, that's what it looks like is happening)

      – mbrig
      Mar 27 at 21:26

















    • phew ok thank you for that explanaion. Is that C# basic knowledge?

      – Dr. Snail
      Mar 27 at 8:30






    • 14





      @Dr.Snail "basic" is relative / subjective, and I'd wager that a good percentage of developers never have a need to know that nuance; it is useful context if you're dealing with boxing, though... and technically it isn't really C# knowledge, but rather: .NET knowledge (it would apply to all languages)

      – Marc Gravell
      Mar 27 at 8:31







    • 5





      @Sinatr you can't - the list never contains int? - it only contains int because of the boxing rules on nullable types

      – Marc Gravell
      Mar 27 at 8:34







    • 1





      @KyleJohnson you added a nullable int to the list. Naively, if nullable ints and ints are different things, you'd expect asking for all the ints in the list to return nothing. There are languages that do it that way, but C# has chosen to do it differently.

      – mbrig
      Mar 27 at 21:24






    • 1





      (and yes, my first sentence there is technically wrong. The nullable int never got added to the list. But if you don't know what's happening here, that's what it looks like is happening)

      – mbrig
      Mar 27 at 21:26
















    phew ok thank you for that explanaion. Is that C# basic knowledge?

    – Dr. Snail
    Mar 27 at 8:30





    phew ok thank you for that explanaion. Is that C# basic knowledge?

    – Dr. Snail
    Mar 27 at 8:30




    14




    14





    @Dr.Snail "basic" is relative / subjective, and I'd wager that a good percentage of developers never have a need to know that nuance; it is useful context if you're dealing with boxing, though... and technically it isn't really C# knowledge, but rather: .NET knowledge (it would apply to all languages)

    – Marc Gravell
    Mar 27 at 8:31






    @Dr.Snail "basic" is relative / subjective, and I'd wager that a good percentage of developers never have a need to know that nuance; it is useful context if you're dealing with boxing, though... and technically it isn't really C# knowledge, but rather: .NET knowledge (it would apply to all languages)

    – Marc Gravell
    Mar 27 at 8:31





    5




    5





    @Sinatr you can't - the list never contains int? - it only contains int because of the boxing rules on nullable types

    – Marc Gravell
    Mar 27 at 8:34






    @Sinatr you can't - the list never contains int? - it only contains int because of the boxing rules on nullable types

    – Marc Gravell
    Mar 27 at 8:34





    1




    1





    @KyleJohnson you added a nullable int to the list. Naively, if nullable ints and ints are different things, you'd expect asking for all the ints in the list to return nothing. There are languages that do it that way, but C# has chosen to do it differently.

    – mbrig
    Mar 27 at 21:24





    @KyleJohnson you added a nullable int to the list. Naively, if nullable ints and ints are different things, you'd expect asking for all the ints in the list to return nothing. There are languages that do it that way, but C# has chosen to do it differently.

    – mbrig
    Mar 27 at 21:24




    1




    1





    (and yes, my first sentence there is technically wrong. The nullable int never got added to the list. But if you don't know what's happening here, that's what it looks like is happening)

    – mbrig
    Mar 27 at 21:26





    (and yes, my first sentence there is technically wrong. The nullable int never got added to the list. But if you don't know what's happening here, that's what it looks like is happening)

    – mbrig
    Mar 27 at 21:26













    8














    A nullable value type is boxed by the following rules:



    • If HasValue returns false, the null reference is produced.

    • If HasValue returns true, a value of the underlying value type T is
      boxed, not the instance of nullable.


    In your example second rule has been followed as you have value, e.g.
    var i = (object)(int?)123;






    share|improve this answer





























      8














      A nullable value type is boxed by the following rules:



      • If HasValue returns false, the null reference is produced.

      • If HasValue returns true, a value of the underlying value type T is
        boxed, not the instance of nullable.


      In your example second rule has been followed as you have value, e.g.
      var i = (object)(int?)123;






      share|improve this answer



























        8












        8








        8







        A nullable value type is boxed by the following rules:



        • If HasValue returns false, the null reference is produced.

        • If HasValue returns true, a value of the underlying value type T is
          boxed, not the instance of nullable.


        In your example second rule has been followed as you have value, e.g.
        var i = (object)(int?)123;






        share|improve this answer















        A nullable value type is boxed by the following rules:



        • If HasValue returns false, the null reference is produced.

        • If HasValue returns true, a value of the underlying value type T is
          boxed, not the instance of nullable.


        In your example second rule has been followed as you have value, e.g.
        var i = (object)(int?)123;







        share|improve this answer














        share|improve this answer



        share|improve this answer








        edited Mar 27 at 13:26

























        answered Mar 27 at 9:11









        JohnnyJohnny

        3,8381021




        3,8381021





















            3














            It is a bit late, but beside of Marc's answer to your question, I want to give some additional information about Nullable value types in CLR.



            The CLR has built-in support for nullable value types. This special support is provided for boxing, unboxing, calling GetType, calling interface methods.



            For example, let's check GetType():



            Int32? x = 5;
            Console.WriteLine(x.GetType());


            What you think it will print to the console?
            System.Nullable<Int32? Not, the result is System.Int32.



            Or, let's check boxing, which you noted in your question:



            Int32? n =5;
            Object o = n;
            Console.WriteLine("o's type=0", o.GetType()); // "System.Int32"


            The rule is that:




            When the CLR is boxing a Nullable instance, it checks to see if it
            is null, and if so, the CLR doesn’t actually box anything, and null is
            returned. If the nullable instance is not null, the CLR takes the
            value out of the nullable instance and boxes it. In other words, a
            Nullable with a value of 5 is boxed into a boxed-Int32 with a
            value of 5.




            And, at the end I want to explain how CLR add special support for calling interface methods from Nullable Types.
            Let's take a look to that:



            Int32? n = 5;
            Int32 result = ((IComparable) n).CompareTo(5); // Compiles & runs OK
            Console.WriteLine(result); // 0


            In the preceding code, I’m casting n, a Nullable<Int32>, to IComparable<Int32>, an interface
            type. However, the Nullable<T> type does not implement the IComparable<Int32> interface as
            Int32 does. The C# compiler allows this code to compile anyway.






            share|improve this answer

























            • So, nullables have special treatment by the compiler? I couldn't implement these rules for my own type?

              – Markonius
              yesterday






            • 1





              @Markonius For example you can not override GetType for your own type to lie about the real type of your object. Because, GetType is non-virtual.

              – Farhad Jabiyev
              yesterday















            3














            It is a bit late, but beside of Marc's answer to your question, I want to give some additional information about Nullable value types in CLR.



            The CLR has built-in support for nullable value types. This special support is provided for boxing, unboxing, calling GetType, calling interface methods.



            For example, let's check GetType():



            Int32? x = 5;
            Console.WriteLine(x.GetType());


            What you think it will print to the console?
            System.Nullable<Int32? Not, the result is System.Int32.



            Or, let's check boxing, which you noted in your question:



            Int32? n =5;
            Object o = n;
            Console.WriteLine("o's type=0", o.GetType()); // "System.Int32"


            The rule is that:




            When the CLR is boxing a Nullable instance, it checks to see if it
            is null, and if so, the CLR doesn’t actually box anything, and null is
            returned. If the nullable instance is not null, the CLR takes the
            value out of the nullable instance and boxes it. In other words, a
            Nullable with a value of 5 is boxed into a boxed-Int32 with a
            value of 5.




            And, at the end I want to explain how CLR add special support for calling interface methods from Nullable Types.
            Let's take a look to that:



            Int32? n = 5;
            Int32 result = ((IComparable) n).CompareTo(5); // Compiles & runs OK
            Console.WriteLine(result); // 0


            In the preceding code, I’m casting n, a Nullable<Int32>, to IComparable<Int32>, an interface
            type. However, the Nullable<T> type does not implement the IComparable<Int32> interface as
            Int32 does. The C# compiler allows this code to compile anyway.






            share|improve this answer

























            • So, nullables have special treatment by the compiler? I couldn't implement these rules for my own type?

              – Markonius
              yesterday






            • 1





              @Markonius For example you can not override GetType for your own type to lie about the real type of your object. Because, GetType is non-virtual.

              – Farhad Jabiyev
              yesterday













            3












            3








            3







            It is a bit late, but beside of Marc's answer to your question, I want to give some additional information about Nullable value types in CLR.



            The CLR has built-in support for nullable value types. This special support is provided for boxing, unboxing, calling GetType, calling interface methods.



            For example, let's check GetType():



            Int32? x = 5;
            Console.WriteLine(x.GetType());


            What you think it will print to the console?
            System.Nullable<Int32? Not, the result is System.Int32.



            Or, let's check boxing, which you noted in your question:



            Int32? n =5;
            Object o = n;
            Console.WriteLine("o's type=0", o.GetType()); // "System.Int32"


            The rule is that:




            When the CLR is boxing a Nullable instance, it checks to see if it
            is null, and if so, the CLR doesn’t actually box anything, and null is
            returned. If the nullable instance is not null, the CLR takes the
            value out of the nullable instance and boxes it. In other words, a
            Nullable with a value of 5 is boxed into a boxed-Int32 with a
            value of 5.




            And, at the end I want to explain how CLR add special support for calling interface methods from Nullable Types.
            Let's take a look to that:



            Int32? n = 5;
            Int32 result = ((IComparable) n).CompareTo(5); // Compiles & runs OK
            Console.WriteLine(result); // 0


            In the preceding code, I’m casting n, a Nullable<Int32>, to IComparable<Int32>, an interface
            type. However, the Nullable<T> type does not implement the IComparable<Int32> interface as
            Int32 does. The C# compiler allows this code to compile anyway.






            share|improve this answer















            It is a bit late, but beside of Marc's answer to your question, I want to give some additional information about Nullable value types in CLR.



            The CLR has built-in support for nullable value types. This special support is provided for boxing, unboxing, calling GetType, calling interface methods.



            For example, let's check GetType():



            Int32? x = 5;
            Console.WriteLine(x.GetType());


            What you think it will print to the console?
            System.Nullable<Int32? Not, the result is System.Int32.



            Or, let's check boxing, which you noted in your question:



            Int32? n =5;
            Object o = n;
            Console.WriteLine("o's type=0", o.GetType()); // "System.Int32"


            The rule is that:




            When the CLR is boxing a Nullable instance, it checks to see if it
            is null, and if so, the CLR doesn’t actually box anything, and null is
            returned. If the nullable instance is not null, the CLR takes the
            value out of the nullable instance and boxes it. In other words, a
            Nullable with a value of 5 is boxed into a boxed-Int32 with a
            value of 5.




            And, at the end I want to explain how CLR add special support for calling interface methods from Nullable Types.
            Let's take a look to that:



            Int32? n = 5;
            Int32 result = ((IComparable) n).CompareTo(5); // Compiles & runs OK
            Console.WriteLine(result); // 0


            In the preceding code, I’m casting n, a Nullable<Int32>, to IComparable<Int32>, an interface
            type. However, the Nullable<T> type does not implement the IComparable<Int32> interface as
            Int32 does. The C# compiler allows this code to compile anyway.







            share|improve this answer














            share|improve this answer



            share|improve this answer








            edited Apr 2 at 21:53

























            answered Apr 2 at 17:59









            Farhad JabiyevFarhad Jabiyev

            19k64279




            19k64279












            • So, nullables have special treatment by the compiler? I couldn't implement these rules for my own type?

              – Markonius
              yesterday






            • 1





              @Markonius For example you can not override GetType for your own type to lie about the real type of your object. Because, GetType is non-virtual.

              – Farhad Jabiyev
              yesterday

















            • So, nullables have special treatment by the compiler? I couldn't implement these rules for my own type?

              – Markonius
              yesterday






            • 1





              @Markonius For example you can not override GetType for your own type to lie about the real type of your object. Because, GetType is non-virtual.

              – Farhad Jabiyev
              yesterday
















            So, nullables have special treatment by the compiler? I couldn't implement these rules for my own type?

            – Markonius
            yesterday





            So, nullables have special treatment by the compiler? I couldn't implement these rules for my own type?

            – Markonius
            yesterday




            1




            1





            @Markonius For example you can not override GetType for your own type to lie about the real type of your object. Because, GetType is non-virtual.

            – Farhad Jabiyev
            yesterday





            @Markonius For example you can not override GetType for your own type to lie about the real type of your object. Because, GetType is non-virtual.

            – Farhad Jabiyev
            yesterday

















            draft saved

            draft discarded
















































            Thanks for contributing an answer to Stack Overflow!


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid


            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function ()
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f55372675%2ftype-int-vs-type-int%23new-answer', 'question_page');

            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown





















































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown

































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown







            -c++, casting

            Popular posts from this blog

            Word for a person who has no opinion about whether god existsWord for having a definite opinion while simultaneously withholding judgment?What's the opposite of “newcomer? Is ”veteran" OK?What do you call an “atheist” who might believe in an afterlife?What's a word for someone who wants to voice opinions but not have them challenged?Word for someone who dismisses contrary opinions as irrational?Somone who thinks they are overly special/out of the ordinaryIs there a word, phrase or idiom for “a person who is incapable of thinking about the future”?The belief that a god is human-likeA word for a non-famous person/thing you have heard a lot aboutAdjective for a person who enjoys taking care of their appearance

            What was this official D&D 3.5e Lovecraft-flavored rulebook?What was this set of RPG tools called?As a first-time DM should I let my players play complex character classes and roles?Nymph's Kiss and the RelationshipWhat was the name of this Cleric Prestige Class that shapes metal with its bare hands?Are the 3.5e Dragonlance books third party or official works?What's up with the domain Vile Darkness?What was this 80s book about RPGs?What was the name of this Werewolf band?What book had Rituals to “upgrade” animal companions to keep them viable at higher levels?What was this RPG that had rules for player-owned businesses?

            2017 IndyCar Series Contents Series news Teams and drivers Schedule Season summary Footnotes References External links Navigation menu"INDYCAR: Initial 2018 bodywork concepts unveiled"the original"IndyCar confirms switch to Performance Friction brakes in 2017""AJ Foyt Racing will switch to Chevy"the original"Carlos Munoz, Conor Daly will drive for AJ Foyt Racing""Zach Veach's Indy 500 Debut Confirmed with Foyt""No mass exodus from Honda after Ganassi switch""Ex-F1 driver Sato joins Andretti Autosport for 2017 IndyCar season""IndyCar's Ryan Hunter-Reay, sponsor DHL paired through 2020""hhgregg and Andretti Autosport announce partnership for key races in 2016""INDYCAR: Rossi re-signs with Andretti"the original"McLaren Formula 1 - Fernando Alonso to race at Indy 500 with McLaren, Honda and Andretti Autosport""Shank will finally take part in Indy 500 with Harvey, Andretti | MotorSportsTalk""Andretti adds Jack Harvey to Indy 500 field""Ganassi switches to Honda power for 2017""INDYCAR: Chilton returns to Ganassi"the original"IndyCar silly season: Who's going where in 2017?""INDYCAR: Kanaan, NTT Data return to Ganassi"the original"Kimball to remain at Ganassi for 2017""Coyne confirms Bourdais for 2017 IndyCar season""Davison to sub for Bourdais in Indy 500"the original"Gutierrez confirmed for Detroit IndyCar debut""Gutierrez returns with Coyne for rest of 2017 season""Vautier to drive for Coyne at Texas"the original"INDYCAR: Coyne confirms Jones for 2017"the original"Pippa Mann returns to Coyne for Indy 500""Karam, Dreyer & Reinbold teaming up again for Indianapolis 500""Pigot to return to Ed Carpenter Racing""Hildebrand confirmed as full-time Ed Carpenter driver""Veach to replace injured Hildebrand at Barber"the originalNew Team Harding Racing Enters Chaves for 101st Indianapolis 500"Juncos Racing Announces Entry in 101st Running of the Indianapolis 500 :: Juncos Racing""Juncos confirms Pigot for Indy 500""Saavedra confirmed in Juncos' second 500 entry"the original"Lazier confirms Indy 500 run after son's USF2000 debut"the original"Claman DeMelo to race for RLLR at Sonoma"the original"Rahal signs Servia and ace engineer for 2017""IndyCar: Aleshin returns with Schmidt"the original"Aleshin replaced by Saavedra for Toronto""Jack Harvey will pilot SPM No. 7 car at Watkins Glen, Sonoma""Jay Howard confirmed in Tony Stewart's supported SPM Indy entry""INDYCAR: Newgarden to wave the flag at Penske"the original"Pagenaud opts for No. 1 in 2017"the original"Penske confirms Newgarden for 2017""Montoya to stay with Team Penske in 2017""Target leaving IndyCar after 27 seasons with Chip Ganassi""Cavin: IndyCar could see complete driver/team shakeup in 2017""End of the road for KV Racing?""KV Racing confirms closure, equipment sold to Juncos""Juncos confirms IndyCar Series entry"the original"Juncos readies IndyCar program, aims for '17 500"the original"Harding Racing to add Texas, Pocono to schedule"the original"Sato signs with Andretti Autosport for 2017""INDYCAR: Aleshin in Doubt at SPM"the original"Long Beach notebook: JR Hildebrand breaks hand""Hildebrand cleared to return at Phoenix"the original"Bourdais to undergo surgery on multiple fractures""Aleshin loses Schmidt Peterson IndyCar ride""Saavedra in at SPM for Pocono, Gateway"the original"Bourdais to make return at Gateway"the original"The IndyCar Grand Prix no longer is sponsored by Angie's List""2017 IndyCar Series rulebook""2017 Verizon IndyCar Series Official Rulebook"Official websiteeeeee