1
\$\begingroup\$

I was reading that Unity does not store GameObjects being null literally, but instead overloads the == operator.

For this reason the null coalescence operators ?? ??= don't work on GameObjects or Components

But if GameObjects and Components are never set to the literal value null, and instead == is overloaded, is it unsafe to do a null check if(component != null) as if(component)? The latter option compiles and seems to work fine, but I don't understand why if it's not ever the value 0, and if this will actually cause problems down the line

\$\endgroup\$
1
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ If you're trying to skip the overloaded comparison operator, (and you're sure you're not dealing with an object that might have been Destroy()ed or filled-in by an editor placeholder) you can also use System.Object.ReferenceEquals(myComponent, null) \$\endgroup\$ Commented Jul 27, 2020 at 13:06

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
2
\$\begingroup\$

Yes, because GameObject inherits Object that implements a conversion to bool, Object.bool, which is what gets evaluated when you write if (object).

The linked docs assert that the conversion behaves equally to operator!= which I assume in any sane world of boolean axioms behaves as !(operator==), meaning that the conversion behaves as operator==, not as System.Object.ReferenceEquals(gameObject, null).

\$\endgroup\$
1
  • \$\begingroup\$ Does this implicit conversion behave like the overridden == operator and report "false" for objects that have been Destroy()ed? Or does it behave like System.Object.ReferenceEquals(gameObject, null) and return false only for a "real" null? \$\endgroup\$ Commented Jul 27, 2020 at 13:21

You must log in to answer this question.

Start asking to get answers

Find the answer to your question by asking.

Ask question

Explore related questions

See similar questions with these tags.