Can you store a variable inside a if-clause - Java

I'm kinda waiting for a 'no' answer on this question.

I was interested if you can save a variable at the same time when you checking it in an if-clause.

Let's say I have this code.

if(foo!=null){
  if(foo.getBar()!=null){
    Bar bar = foo.getBar();
    System.out.println("Success: " + bar);
  } else {
    System.out.println("Failure.");
  }
} else {
  System.out.println("Failure.");
}

I handling now to "failure" -states independently, even if the outcome is the same. I could get them together like this:

if(foo!=null && foo.getBar()!=null){
  Bar bar = foo.getBar();
  System.out.println("Success: " + bar);
} else {
  System.out.println("Failure.");
}

Much neater code already. if foo is null it will stop there and won't try foo.getBar (in the if) so I won't get a NPE. The last thing i would like to enhance, and the main question: Do I really gave to call on foo.getBar() twice? It would be nice to get away from the second identical call if getBar() would be a very heavy operation. So I am wondering if there is somehow possible to do something similiar to this:

if(foo!=null && (Bar bar = foo.getBar())!=null){
  Bar bar = foo.getBar();
  System.out.println("Success: " + bar);
} else {
  System.out.println("Failure.");
}

I would have to break it up to two different if's again if I would like to do

Bar bar = foo.getBar();
if (bar!=null) ...

From stackoverflow

• I have used that technique when iterating over lines from a BufferedReader:

  BufferedReader br = // create reader
  String line
  while ((line = br.readLine()) != null) {
      // process the line
  }
  

  So yes, you can do an assignment, and the result off that will be the left hand side variable, which you can then check. However, it's not legal to declare variables inside a test, as they would then only be scoped to that expression.

• This is the closest you can get:

  Bar bar;
  if(foo!=null && (bar = foo.getBar())!=null){
    System.out.println("Success: " + bar);
  } else {
    System.out.println("Failiure.");
  }
  

  Jens Jansson : Yeah, this actually worked. I tried to have (Bar bar = foo.getBar()) !=null inside the if, but java doesn't seem to like to have the Object's initialization inside the if-clause. Thanks!

• if you want to limit the scope of Bar bar I'd add { and } around the code that Michael posted.

  void foo()
  {
      // some code ...
  
      // this block limits the scope of "Bar bar" so that the rest of the method cannot see 
      // it.
      {
          Bar bar;
          if(foo!=null && (bar = foo.getBar())!=null){
              System.out.println("Success: " + bar);
          } else {
              System.out.println("Failiure.");
          }
      }
  }
  

  You might also want to check into the null object pattern if it makes sense. I personally try to avoid things being null if I can... really think about if you want null to be allowed or not.

• From the department "My Programming Language is Better Than Your Programming Language": In Groovy, you can use the "?." operator:

  Bar bar = foo?.bar
  if (bar != null) {
  }
  

  In Java, this is good pattern(*):

  Bar bar = foo == null ? null : foo.getBar();
  if (bar != null) {
  }
  

  *: Something you can save in your fingertips.

• Three points that completely fail to answer the question:

  null is evil. Don't write methods that return it. Your example problem would then disappear.

  I think you might be missing out on encapsulation. Instead of foo.getBar() could the interface of foo be made such that you perform a "tell don't ask" operation?

  Side-effects in expression tends to cause bad code. Prefer more, simpler lines to fewer, buggy lines. The usual exception if using ++ to increment an index when accessing a buffer, or similar iterator style algorithms.