c# - Is there a better way to express a parameterless lambda than () =>?

Question

The () seems silly. is there a better way?

For example:

ExternalId.IfNotNullDo(() => ExternalId = ExternalId.Trim());

question from:https://stackoverflow.com/questions/424775/is-there-a-better-way-to-express-a-parameterless-lambda-than

Answer 1

Sort of! There is a new idiom in town, that is nice and may help you in some cases. It is not fully what you want, but sometimes I think you will like it.

Since underscore ("_") is a valid C# identifier, it is becoming a common idiom to use it as a parameter name to a lambda in cases where you plan to ignore the parameter anyway. If other coders are aware of the idiom, they will know immediately that the parameter is irrelevant.

For example:

ExternalId.IfNotNullDo( _ => ExternalId=ExternalId.Trim());

Easy to type, conveys your intent, and easier on the eyes as well.

Of course, if you're passing your lambda to something that expects an expression tree, this may not work, because now you're passing a one-parameter lambda instead of a no-parameter lambda.

But for many cases, it is a nice solution.