I have a method where all logic is performed inside a foreach loop that iterates over the method's parameter:

public IEnumerable<TransformedNode> TransformNodes(IEnumerable<Node> nodes)
    foreach(var node in nodes)
        // yadda yadda yadda
        yield return transformedNode;

In this case, sending in an empty collection results in an empty collection, but I'm wondering if that's unwise.

My logic here is that if somebody is calling this method, then they intend to pass data in, and would only pass an empty collection to my method in erroneous circumstances.

Should I catch this behaviour and throw an exception for it, or is it best practice to return the empty collection?

  • 43
    Are you sure your assumption "if somebody is calling this method, then they intend to pass data in" is correct? Maybe they are just passing what they got at hand to work with the result. – SpaceTrucker Nov 26 '14 at 12:39
  • 7
    BTW: your "transform" method is usually called "map", although in .NET (and SQL, which is where .NET got the name from), it is commonly called "select". "Transform" is what C++ calls it, but that is not a common name that one might recognize. – Jörg W Mittag Nov 26 '14 at 13:32
  • 25
    I'd throw if the collection is null but not if it's empty. – CodesInChaos Nov 26 '14 at 13:36
  • 21
    @NickUdell - I pass empty collections around in my code all the time. It's easier for code to behave the same than write special branching logic for cases where I could not add anything to my collection before moving on with it. – theMayer Nov 26 '14 at 14:56
  • 7
    If you check and throw an error if the collection is empty, then you are forcing your caller to also check and not pass an empty collection to your method. Validations should be done on (and only on) system boundaries, if empty collections bothers you, you should have already checked them on long before it reached any utility methods. Now you have two redundant checks. – Lie Ryan Nov 26 '14 at 15:21

Utility methods should not throw on empty collections. Your API clients would hate you for it.

A collection can be empty; a "collection-that-must-not-be-empty" is conceptually a much more difficult thing to work with.

Transforming an empty collection has an obvious outcome: the empty collection. (You may even save some garbage by returning the parameter itself.)

There are many circumstances in which a module maintains lists of stuff that may or may not be already filled with something. Having to check for emptiness before each and every call to transform is annoying and has the potential to turn a simple, elegant algorithm into an ugly mess.

Utility methods should always strive to be liberal in their inputs and conservative in their outputs.

For all these reasons, for God's sake, handle the empty collection correctly. Nothing is more exasperating than a helper module that thinks it knows what you want better than you do.

| improve this answer | |
  • 14
    +1 - (more if I could). I might even go so far as to also coalesce null into the empty collection. Functions with implicit limitations are a pain. – Telastyn Nov 26 '14 at 12:41
  • 6
    "No you shouldn't"... shouldn't accept them or shouldn't throw an exception? – Ben Aaronson Nov 26 '14 at 13:01
  • 16
    @Andy - those wouldn't be utility methods though. They'd be business methods or some similar concrete behavior. – Telastyn Nov 26 '14 at 14:40
  • 38
    I don't think recycling the empty collection for a return is a good idea. You're only saving a tiny bit of memory; and it could result in unexpected behavior in the caller. Slightly contrived example: Populate1(input); output1 = TransformNodes(input); Populate2(input); output2 = TransformNodes(input); If Populate1 left the collection empty and you returned it for the first TransformNodes call, output1 and input would be the same collection, and when Populaten2 was called if it did put nodes in the collection you'd end up with your second set of input in output2. – Dan Is Fiddling By Firelight Nov 26 '14 at 14:59
  • 6
    @Andy Even so, if the argument should never be empty - if it is an error to have no data to process - then I feel it's the responsibility of the caller to check this, when it's collating that argument. Not only does it keep this method more elegant, but it means one can generate a better error message (better context) and raise it in a fail-fast way. It doesn't make sense for a downstream class to verify the caller's invariants... – Andrzej Doyle Nov 27 '14 at 11:39

I see two important questions which determine the answer to this:

  1. Can your function return anything meaningful and logical when passed an empty collection (including null)?
  2. What is the general programming style in this applicaton/library/team? (Specifically, how FP are you?)

1. Meaningful return

Essentially, if you can return something meaningful, then do not throw an exception. Let the caller deal with the result. So if your function...

  • Counts the number of elements in the collection, return 0. That was easy.
  • Searches for elements which match particular criteria, return an empty collection. Please do not throw anything. The caller may have a huge collection of collections, some of which are empty, some not. The caller wants any matching elements in any collection. Exceptions only make the caller´s life harder.
  • Is looking for the largest/smallest/best-fit-to-the-criteria in the list. Oops. Depending on the style question, you might throw an exception here or you could return null. I hate null (very much an FP person) but it is arguably more meaningful here and it lets you reserve exceptions for unexpected errors within your own code. If the caller doesn´t check for null, a fairly clear exception will result anyway. But you leave that to them.
  • Asks for the nth item in the collection or the first/last n items. This is the best case for an exception yet and the one that is least likely to cause confusion and difficulty for the caller. A case can still be made for null if you and your team are used to checking for that, for all the reasons given in the previous point, but this is the most valid case yet for throwing a DudeYouKnowYouShouldCheckTheSizeFirst exception. If your style is more functional, then either null or read on to my Style answer.

In general, my FP bias tells me ¨return something meaningful¨ and null can have valid meaning in this case.

2. Style

Does your general code (or the project´s code or the team´s code) favour a functional style? If no, exceptions will be expected and dealt with. If yes, then consider returning an Option Type. With an option type, you either return a meaningful answer or None/Nothing. In my third example from above, Nothing would be a good answer in FP style. The fact that the function returns an Option type signals clearly to the caller than a meaningful answer may not be possible and that the caller should be prepared to deal with that. I feel it gives the caller more options (if you will forgive the pun).

F# is where all the cool .Net kids do this kind of thing but C# does support this style.


Keep exceptions for unexpected errors in your own code path, not entirely foreseeable (and legal) input from somebody else´s.

| improve this answer | |
  • "Best fit" etc.: You may have a method that finds the best fit object in a collection that matches some criterion. That method would have the same problem for non-empty collections, because nothing might fit the criterion, so no need to worry about empty selections. – gnasher729 Nov 26 '14 at 14:46
  • 1
    No, that is why I said ¨best fit¨ and not ¨matches¨; the phrase implies the closest approximation, not an exact match. The largest/smallest options should have been a clue. If only ¨best fit¨ has been asked for, then any collection with 1 or more members should be able to return a member. If there is only one member, that is the best fit. – itsbruce Nov 26 '14 at 14:59
  • 1
    Return "null" in most cases is worse then throwing a exception. However returning an empty collection is meaningful. – Ian Nov 26 '14 at 17:27
  • 1
    Not if you have to return a single item (min/max/head/tail). As for null, as I said, I hate it (and prefer languages which do not have it), but where a language does have it, you have to be able to deal with it and code that hands it out. Depending on the local coding conventions, it may be appropriate. – itsbruce Nov 26 '14 at 18:16
  • None of your examples have anything to do with an empty input. They're just special cases of situations where the answer might be "nothing." Which in turn should answer the OP's question about how to "handle" the empty collection. – djechlin Nov 30 '14 at 16:54

As ever, it depends.

Does it matter that the collection is empty?
Most collection-handling code would probably say "no"; a collection can have any number of items in it, including zero.

Now, if you have some sort of collection where it is "invalid" to have no items in it, then that's a new requirement and you have to decide what to do about it.

Borrow some testing logic from the Database world: test for zero items, one item and two items. That caters for the most important cases (flushing out any badly-formed inner or cartesian join conditions).

| improve this answer | |
  • And if it's invalid to have no items in a collection, then ideally the argument wouldn't be a java.util.Collection, but a custom com.foo.util.NonEmptyCollection class, that can consistently preserve this invariant, and prevent you from getting into an invalid state to start with. – Andrzej Doyle Nov 27 '14 at 11:42
  • 3
    This question is tagged [c#] – Nick Udell Nov 27 '14 at 12:36
  • @NickUdell does C# not support Object Oriented programming or the concept of nested namespaces? TIL. – John Dvorak Nov 27 '14 at 12:38
  • 2
    It does. My comment was a clarification as Andrzej must have been confused (for why else would they go to the effort of specifying namespaced for a language this question does not reference?). – Nick Udell Nov 27 '14 at 13:16
  • -1 for emphasizing the "it depends" more than the "almost certainly yes". No joke - communicating the wrong thing does damage here. – djechlin Nov 30 '14 at 16:55

As a matter of good design, accept as much variation in your inputs as practical or possible. Exceptions should only be thrown when (unacceptable input is presented OR unexpected errors happen while processing) AND the program cannot continue in a predictable way as a result.

In this case, it should be expected that an empty collection will be presented, and your code needs to handle it (which it already does). It would be a violation of all that is good if your code threw an exception here. This would be akin to multiplying 0 by 0 in mathematics. It is redundant, but absolutely necessary for it to work the way it does.

Now, on to the null collection argument. In this case, a null collection is a programming mistake: the programmer forgot to assign a variable. This is a case where an exception could be thrown, because you cannot meaningfully process that into an output, and attempting to do so would introduce unexpected behavior. This would be akin to dividing by zero in mathematics - it is completely meaningless.

| improve this answer | |
  • Your bold statement is extremely bad advice in full generality. I think it's true here but you need to explain what's special about this circumstance. (It's bad advice in general because it promotes silent failures.) – djechlin Nov 30 '14 at 16:55
  • @AAA - clearly we're not writing a book on how to design software here, but I don't think it's bad advice at all if you really understand what I am saying. My point is that were bad input produces ambiguous or arbitrary output, you need to throw an exception. In cases where the output is totally predictable (as is the case here), then throwing an exception would be arbitrary. The key is never to make arbitrary decisions in your program, as that is where unpredictable behavior comes from. – theMayer Dec 1 '14 at 4:45
  • But it's your first sentence and the only highlighted one... no one understands what you are saying yet. (I'm not trying to be too aggressive here, just one of the things we're here to do is learn to write and communicate and I do thing the loss of precision in a key point is harmful.) – djechlin Dec 1 '14 at 13:46

The right solution is much harder to see when you are just looking at your function in isolation. Consider your function as one part of a larger problem. One possible solution to that example looks like this (in Scala):

.filterNot (_.isEmpty)
.map (_.toInt)
.filter (x => x >= 1000 && x <= 9999)

First, you split the string up by non-digits, filter out the empty strings, convert the strings to integers, then filter to keep only the four-digit numbers. Your function might be the map (_.toInt) in the pipeline.

This code is fairly straightforward because each stage in the pipeline just handles an empty string or an empty collection. If you put an empty string in at the start, you get an empty list out at the end. You don't have to stop and check for null or an exception after every call.

Of course, that's presuming an empty output list doesn't have more than one meaning. If you need to differentiate between an empty output caused by empty input and one caused by the transform itself, that completely changes things.

| improve this answer | |
  • +1 for extremely effective example (lacking in the other good answers). – djechlin Nov 30 '14 at 16:56

This question is actually about exceptions. If you look at it that way and ignore the empty collection as an implementation detail, the answer is straightforward:

1) A method should throw an exception when it can't proceed: either unable to do the designated task, or return the appropriaate value.

2) A method should catch an exception when it is able to proceed despite the failure.

So, your helper method should not be "helpful" and throw an exception unless it is unable to do it's job with an empty collection. Let the caller determine whether the results can be handled.

Whether it returns an empty collection or null, is a bit more difficult but not much: nullable collections should be avoided if possible. The purpose of a nullable collection would be to indicate (as in SQL) that you don't have the information -- a collection of children for example might be null if you don't know if someone has any, but you don't know that they don't. But if that is important for some reason, it's probably worth an extra variable to track it.

| improve this answer | |

The method is named TransformNodes. In case of an empty collection as input, getting back an empty collection is natural and intuitive, and makes prefect mathematical sense.

If the method was named Max and designed to return the maximum element, then it would be natural to throw NoSuchElementException on an empty collection, as the maximum of nothing makes no mathematical sense.

If the method was named JoinSqlColumnNames and designed to return a string where the elements are joined by a comma to use in SQL queries, then it would make sense to throw IllegalArgumentException on an empty collection, as the caller would eventually get an SQL error anyway if he used the string in an SQL query directly without further checks, and instead of checking for a returned empty string he really should have checked for empty collection instead.

| improve this answer | |
  • Max of nothing is often negative infinity. – djechlin Nov 30 '14 at 16:58

Let's step back and use a different example which computes the arithmetic mean of an array of values.

If the input array is empty (or null), can you reasonably fulfill the caller's request? No. What are your options? Well, you could:

  • present/return/throw an error. using your codebase's convention for that class of error.
  • document that a value such as zero will be returned
  • document that a designated invalid value will be returned (e.g. NaN)
  • document that a magic value will be returned (e.g. a min or max for the type or some hopefully-indicative value)
  • declare the result is unspecified
  • declare the action is undefined
  • etc.

I say give them the error if they have given you invalid input and the request cannot be completed. I mean a hard error from day one so they understand your program's requirements. After all, your function is not in a position to respond. If the operation could fail (e.g. copy a file), then your API should give them an error they can deal with.

So that can define how your library handles malformed requests and requests which may fail.

It's very important for your code to be consistent in how it handles these classes of errors.

The next category is to decide how your library handles nonsense requests. Getting back to an example similar to yours -- let's use a function which determines whether a file exists at a path: bool FileExistsAtPath(String). If the client passes an empty string, how do you handle this scenario? How about an empty or null array passed to void SaveDocuments(Array<Document>)? Decide for your library/codebase, and be consistent. I happen to consider these cases errors, and forbid clients from making nonsense requests by flagging them as errors (via an assertion). Some people will strongly resist that idea/action. I find this error detection very helpful. It is very good for locating issues in programs -- with good locality to the offending program. Programs are much clearer and correct (consider evolution of your codebase), and don't burn cycles within functions which do nothing. Code's smaller/cleaner this way, and the checks are generally pushed out to the locations where the issue may be introduced.

| improve this answer | |
  • 6
    For your last example, it's not that function's job to determine what is nonsense. Therefore, an empty string should return false. Indeed, that is The exact approach File.Exists takes. – theMayer Nov 26 '14 at 16:20
  • @rmayer06 it is its job. the referenced function permits null, empty strings, checks for invalid characters in the string, performs string truncation, may need to make filesystem calls, may need to query the environment, etc. those often-redundant-in-execution 'conveniences' have a high cost, and they definitely blur the lines of correctness (IMO). i've seen plenty of if (!FileExists(path)) { ...create it!!!... } bugs -- many of which would be caught before commit, were the lines of correctness not blurred. – justin Nov 26 '14 at 16:40
  • 2
    I would I agree with you, if the name of the function was File.ThrowExceptionIfPathIsInvalid, but who in their right mind would call such function? – theMayer Nov 26 '14 at 16:48
  • An average of 0 items is already going to either return NaN or throw a divide-by-zero exception, just because of how the function is defined. A file with a name that can't possibly exist, either won't exist or will already trigger an error. There's no compelling reason to handle these cases specially. – cHao Nov 27 '14 at 16:13
  • One could even argue that the whole concept of checking for a file's existence before reading or writing it, is flawed anyway. (There's an inherent race condition.) Better to just go ahead and try to open the file, for reading, or with create-only settings if you'for writing. It'll already fail if the filename is invalid or doesn't exist (or does, in the case of writing). – cHao Nov 27 '14 at 16:23

As a rule of thumb, a standard function should be able to accept the broadest list of inputs and give feedback on it, there are many examples where programmers use functions in ways that the designer had not planned, with this in mind i believe the function should be able to accept not only empty collections but a wide range of input types and gracefully return feedback, be it even an error object from whatever operation was performed on the input...

| improve this answer | |
  • It is absolutely wrong for the designer to assume that a collection will always be passed and go straight to iterating over the said collection, a check must be done to ensure that the received argument conforms to the expected datatype... – Clement Mark-Aaba Nov 27 '14 at 11:33
  • 3
    "wide range of input types" looks irrelevant here. Question is tagged c#, a strongly typed language. That is, compiler guarantees that input is a collection – gnat Nov 27 '14 at 11:56
  • Kindly google "rule of thumb", my answer was a generalized caution that as a programmer you make room for unforeseen or erroneous occurrences, one of these can be erroneously passed function arguments... – Clement Mark-Aaba Nov 27 '14 at 12:14
  • 1
    This is either wrong or tautological. writePaycheckToEmployee should not accept a negative number as input... but if "feedback" means "does anything that might happen next," then yes every function will do something it does next. – djechlin Nov 30 '14 at 16:59

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.