Stupid Special .NET Types

For the past 6 months, I haven't done as much techincal blogging as I have in the past. I don't apologize for that - I'm just stating a fact. To be more specific, my custom blogging tool doesn't work at the client I'm at, and my temporary workaround (a secure web page) isn't cutting it. Therefore, I usually wait to blog until I get home, but now that I'm a father I don't feel like geeking out when I get home as much as I used to, nor am I always motivated to blog about things I've run into at work. I plan on adding web services to make my custom blogging engine more accessible...someday in the future.

Anyway, I ran into an issue yesterday that kind of annoyed me a bit. It's not that big of a deal, but...well, here's the issue. If you've used .NET 2.0, you may have noticed that there's a static method on the string class called IsNullOrEmpty():

string nullString = null;
string emptyString = string.Empty;
string name = "Jason Bock";


It's nice because there are a lot of situations I run into where a string being null or empty really means the same thing to me, and this utility method takes care of the following code that I always have to write in .NET 1.x:

if(nullString != null && nullString.Length > 0)

As I was working with some code that uses a bunch of arrays of different types, I realized that it would be cool if the Array class had a similar static method called IsNullOrEmpty() so I could do something like this:

string[] nullNames = null;


Unfortunately, such a method doesn't exist. I tried writing my own, but my first attempt came to crashing end:

bool IsNullOrEmpty<T>(T array) where T : Array
    // ...

The problem with this is the generic constraint. I can't use array - the compiler gives the following error: "Constraint cannot be special class 'System.Array'". Mike Woodring recently ran into the same problem (although in a different context and with the Delegate class). This sucks, but I started wondering if the Array class was updated in 2.0 from 1.x. In 1.x, Array implemented the ICloneable, IList, ICollection, and IEnumerable interfaces. In 2.0, Array also implements the generic versions of these interfaces at runtime, but the key point is that Array implements IList, so now we can make some headway:

static bool IsNullOrEmpty<T>(T value) where T : IList
    return !(value != null && value.Count > 0);

Now I can write code like this:

string[] nullNames = null;
string[] emptyNames = new string[0];
string[] names = { "Jason", "Liz" };


int[] nullAges = null;
int[] emptyAges = new int[0];
int[] ages = { 34, 34 };


One minor issue is that IsNullOrEmpty() is not limited to arrays. For example, the following code will work as well:

ArrayList identifiers = new ArrayList(
    new Guid[] { Guid.NewGuid(), Guid.NewGuid() });


I can change IsNullOrEmpty() to enforce that the given value is an array and only an array:

static bool IsNullOrEmpty<T>(T value) where T : IList
        throw new ArgumentException("value is not an array.", "value");

    return !(value != null && value.Count > 0);

However, I'm not to thrilled about this. I mean, since I can't constrain the generic value to an Array, then why enforce it? The ideal solution would be to constrain the generic type to an array, but that's not possible, so I might as well let any type in that implements IList.

Generics are fun. I love 'em. But sometimes there are certain situations where you're still limited by "interesting" edge cases in .NET. In this case, though, it doesn't prevent me from creating a reasonable implementation to solve the problem.

* Posted at 12.14.2005 09:20:42 PM CST | Link *

Blog History