Why casting to object when comparing to null?

Question

While browsing the MSDN documentations on Equals overrides, one point grabbed my attention.

On the examples of this specific page, some null checks are made, and the

Answer 1

It is possible for a type to overload the == operator. The cast to object ensures that the original definition is used.

Answer 2

It likely exists to avoid confusion with an overloaded == operator. Imagine if the cast did not exist and the == operator was overloaded. Now the p == null line would potentially bind to the operator ==. Many implementations of operator == simply defer to the overridden Equals method. This could easily cause a stack overflow situation

public static bool operator==(TwoDPoint left, TwoDPoint right) {
  return left.Equals(right);
}

public override bool Equals(System.Object obj) {
    ...
    TwoDPoint p = obj as TwoDPoint;
    if ( p == null ) {  // Stack overflow!!!
        return false;
    }

    ...
}

By casting to Object the author ensures a simple reference check for null will occur (which is what is intended).

Answer 3

As others said, the type might override the == operator. Therefore, casting to Objectis equivalent to if (Object.ReferenceEquals(p, null)) { ... }.

Answer 4

I believe casting to System.Object would get you around any operator overloading that TwoDPoint might have.

Answer 5

This might have been part of a larger sample where the == operator was overloaded. In that case, using obj == null could have resulted in StackOverflow if TwoDPoint.Equals(object) was invoked as part of the == definition.