I'm facing an issue with some simple C# code which I would easily fix in C/C++.
I guess I'm missing something.
I want to do the following (modifying items in a list -- in place):
//pseudocode
void modify<T>(List<T> a) {
foreach(var item in a) {
if(condition(item)) {
item = somethingElse;
}
}
}
I understand that foreach loops on a collection viewed as immutable, so the code above can't work.
I therefore tried the following :
void modify<T>(List<T> a) {
using (var sequenceEnum = a.GetEnumerator())
{
while (sequenceEnum.MoveNext())
{
var m = sequenceEnum.Current;
if(condition(m)) {
sequenceEnum.Current = somethingElse;
}
}
}
}
Naively thinking that Enumerator was some kind of pointer to my Element. Apparently enumerators are also immutable.
In C++ I would write something like that:
template<typename T>
struct Node {
T* value;
Node* next;
}
being then able to modify *value without touching anything in Node and therefore in the parent collection:
Node<T>* current = a->head;
while(current != nullptr) {
if(condition(current->value))
current->value = ...
}
current = current->next;
}
Do I really have to to unsafe code?
Or am i stuck the awfulness of calling subscript inside the loop?
You could also use a simple for loop.
void modify<T>(List<T> a)
{
for (int i = 0; i < a.Count; i++)
{
if (condition(a[i]))
{
a[i] = default(T);
}
}
}
In short - do not modify lists. You can achieve desired effect with
a = a.Select(x => <some logic> ? x : default(T)).ToList()
In general lists in C# are immutable during iteration. You can hovewer use .RemoveAll or similar methods.
As described in documentation here, System.Collections.Generic.List<T> is a generic implementation of the System.Collections.ArrayList which has O(1) complexity in indexed accessor. Very much like C++ std::vector<>, complexity of insertion/addition of elements is unpredictible, but access is time constant (complexity-wise, with respect to caching, etc).
The equivalent of your C++ code snippet would be LinkedList
As for the immutability of your collection during iteration, it is clearly stated in the documentation of GetEnumerator method here. Indeed, during enumeration (within a foreach, or using IEnumerator.MoveNext directly):
Enumerators can be used to read the data in the collection, but they
cannot be used to modify the underlying collection.
Moreover, modifying the list will invalidate the enumerator and usually throw an exception:
An enumerator remains valid as long as the collection remains
unchanged. If changes are made to the collection, such as adding,
modifying, or deleting elements, the enumerator is irrecoverably
invalidated and its behavior is undefined.
I believe this interface contract consistency between various types of collections leads to your misunderstanding: it would possible to implement a mutable list, but it is not required by the interfaces contract.
Imagine you want to implement a list that is mutable during enumeration. Would the enumerator hold a reference to (or a way to retrieve) the entry or the entry itself ? The entry itself would make it unmutable, a reference would be invalid when inserting elements in a linked list for example.
The simple for loop proposed by #Igor seems to be the best way to go if you want to use the standard Collections library. Otherwise, you may need to reimplement it yourself.
Use something like this:
List<T> GetModified<T>(List<T> list, Func<T, bool> condition, Func<T> replacement)
{
return list.Select(m => if (condition(m))
{ return m; }
else
{ return replacement(); }).ToList();
}
Usage:
originalList = GetModified(originalList, i => i.IsAwesome(), null);
But this can also get you into trouble with cross-thread operations. Try to use immutable instances where possible, especially with IEnumerable.
If you really really want to modify the instance of list:
//if you ever want to also remove items, this is magic (why I iterate backwards)
for (int i = list.Count - 1; i >= 0; i--)
{
if (condition)
{
list[i] = whateverYouWant;
}
}
Suppose I have the following code:
List<SomeObject> someObjects = ReturnListWithThousandsOfObjects();
foreach(SomeObject someobject in someObjects)
{
DoSomething.With(someObject);
}
And also suppose that after a minute of running I put a breakpoint on DoSomething.With(someObject);.
The debugger breaks for me just fine. But now I want to know what point am I at in my iteration of the list (assume the list is unordered/has no key).
Is there a way for the debugger to say "the foreach has run 532 of 2321 iterations"?
As a debugging one off isn't there an indexof method?
i.e.
quickwatch - someObjects.indexOf(someObject);
Added - Sorry if a bit brief.
As pointed out by Guffa this will work best if the values are unique or the default equality comparer EqualityComparer function uses a unique value (such as a custom GetHashCode/Equals overload).
public class ATest
{
public int number { get; set; }
public int boo { get; set; }
public ATest()
{
}
}
protected void Go()
{
List<ATest> list = new List<ATest>();
foreach(var i in Enumerable.Range(0,30)) {
foreach(var j in Enumerable.Range(0,100)) {
list.Add(new ATest() { number = i, boo = j });
}
}
var o =0; //only for proving concept.
foreach (ATest aTest in list)
{
DoSomthing(aTest);
//proof that this does work in this example.
o++;
System.Diagnostics.Debug.Assert(o == list.IndexOf(aTest));
}
}
This is for Visual Studio, but other IDEs should have something similar:
When you set a breakpoint you can right-click it and go to "Hit Count". You can setup some parameters there ("greater than or equal to " 0 will make it work like a regular breakpoint - so would "break always"). The interesting part is the Hit Count field (which can be reset).
This can solve the "number of iterations" part. For the total number I'm afraid you're going to have to find it yourself, assuming the collection you use has such a number readily available.
You can also set the breakpoint to fire after a very large number of hits, say a few thousands/millions (I don't know what is their limit).
Then, when the "real" breakpoint fires, the one where you want to know how many times the original breakpoint was hit, you can just examine it and reset it if needed.
Is this case, if you really wanted to know what the count is, wouldn't you use a for loop?
List<SomeObject> someObjects = ReturnListWithThousandsOfObjects();
for(int someObj= 1; someObj <= someObjects.Count; someObj++)
{
Console.WriteLine(string.Format("{0} of {1} iterations", someObj, someObjects.Count));
DoSomething.With(someObject[someObj]);
}
There will be no real difference in performance between the foreach and the for loops - therefore the for loop will be a better alternative for the situation you want to achieve.
Unless you manually keep count in a variable you won't be able to easily determine this. As the loop is iterating across your collection it just uses the enumerator to grab the next element in the collection tell there are no more elements at which point it exits.
To manually keep a count you would just do:
int count = 0;
List<SomeObject> someObjects = ReturnListWithThousandsOfObjects();
foreach(SomeObject someobject in someObjects)
{
count++;
DoSomething.With(someObject);
}
Now at any point you can pause execution and see which iteration you are on
Create an extension method on List and List which accepts a Action fold, Action sideFold that let's you accumulate side effects like checking for the existence of a debugger and breaking on accumulated state.
Yes it can. Here's how [in VS 2017] :
Set a break point inside the foreach loop
Right click the break point and select 'Actions'
In the text box, enter the following: $FUNCTION {list.Items.IndexOf(item)} where 'list' is the name of your list and 'item' is the current item
Continue running the code and watch the output window
Sometimes, I feel like it is easier to check if all of the conditions are true, but then only handle the "other" situation.
I guess I sometimes feel that it is easier to know that something is valid, and assume all other cases are not valid.
For example, let's say that we only really care about when there is something wrong:
object value = GetValueFromSomeAPIOrOtherMethod();
if((value != null) && (!string.IsNullOrEmpty(value.Prop)) && (possibleValues.Contains(value.prop)))
{
// All the conditions passed, but we don't actually do anything
}
else
{
// Do my stuff here, like error handling
}
Or should I just change that to be:
object value = GetValueFromSomeAPIOrOtherMethod();
if((value == null) || (string.IsNullOrEmpty(value.Prop)) || (!possibleValues.Contains(value.prop)))
{
// Do my stuff here, like error handling
}
Or (which I find ugly):
object value = GetValueFromSomeAPIOrOtherMethod();
if(!((value != null) && (!string.IsNullOrEmpty(value.Prop)) && (possibleValues.Contains(value.prop))))
{
// Do my stuff here, like error handling
}
Though rare for me, I sometimes feel that writing in this form leads to the clearest code in some cases. Go for the form that provides the most clarity. The compiler won't care, and should generate essentially (probably exactly) the same code.
It may be clearer, though, to define a boolean variable that is assigned the condition in the if () statement, then write your code as a negation of that variable:
bool myCondition = (....);
if (!myCondition)
{
...
}
Having an empty if block with statements in the else is ... just bad style. Sorry, this is one of my pet peeves. There is nothing functionally wrong with it, it just makes my eyes bleed.
Simply ! out the if statement and put your code there. IMHO it reduces the noise and makes the code more readable.
I should preface this by saying that it's my own personal preference, but I find myself usually pulling the validation logic out of the code and into its own validate function. At that point, your code becomes much "neater" by just saying:
if(!ValidateAPIValue(value))
That, in my mind, seems a lot more concise and understandable.
Just using the else part isn't acceptable. You needn't go to the trouble of applying De-Morgan's rule, just not the whole expresssion. That is, go from if (cond) to if (!(cond)).
I think it's completely unacceptable.
The only reason at all would be to avoid a single negation and pair of parentheses around the expression. I agree that the expressions in your example are horrible, but they are unacceptably convoluted to begin with! Divide the expression into parts of acceptable clarity, store those into booleans (or make methods out of them), and combine those to make your if-statement condition.
One similar design I do often use is exiting early. I don't write code like this:
if (validityCheck1)
{
if (validityCheck2)
{
// Do lots and lots of things
}
else
{
// Throw some exception, return something, or do some other simple cleanup/logic (version 2)
}
}
else
{
// Throw some exception, return something, or do some other simple cleanup/logic. (version 1)
}
Instead I write this:
if (!validityCheck1)
{
// Throw some exception, return false, or do some other simple logic. (version 1)
}
if (!validityCheck2)
{
// Throw some exception, return false, or do some other simple logic. (version 2)
}
// Do lots and lots of things
This has two advantages:
Only a few input cases are invalid, and they have simple handling. They should be handled immediately so we can throw them out of our mental model as soon as possible and fully concentrate on the important logic. Especially when there are multiple validity checks in nested if-statements.
The block of code that handles the valid cases will usually be the largest part of the method and contain nested blocks of its own. It's a lot less cluttered if this block of code is not itself nested (possibly multiple times) in an if-statement.
So the code is more readable and easier to reason about.
Extract your conditions, then call
if(!ConditionsMetFor(value))
{
//Do Something
}
Although this is not always practical, I usually prefer to change
if (complexcondition){} else {/*stuff*/}
to
if (complexcondition) continue;
/*stuff*/
(or break out with return, break, etc.). Of course if the condition is too complex, you can replace it with several conditions, all of which cause the code to break out of what it is doing. This mostly applies to validation and error-checking types of code, where you probably want to get out if something goes wrong.
If I see an "if", I expect it to do something.
if(!condition)
is far more readable.
if(condition) {
//do nothing
}
else {
//do stuff
}
essentially reads, "If my condition is met, do nothing, otherwise do something."
If we are to read your code as prose (which good, self-documenting code should be able to be read in that fashion) that's simply too wordy and introduces more concepts than necessary to accomplish your goal. Stick with the "!".
This is bad style, consider some very useful alternatives:
Use a guard clause style:
object value = GetValueFromSomeAPIOrOtherMethod();
if((value != null) && (!string.IsNullOrEmpty(value.Prop)) && (possibleValues.Contains(value.prop)))
{
return;
}
// do stuff here
Extract the conditional into its own method, this keeps things logical and easy to read:
bool ValueHasProperty(object value)
{
return (value != null) && (!string.IsNullOrEmpty(value.Prop)) && (possibleValues.Contains(value.prop));
}
void SomeMethod()
{
object value = GetValueFromSomeAPIOrOtherMethod();
if(!ValueHasProperty(value))
{
// do stuff here
}
}
Your question is similar to my answer(simplifying the conditions) on favorite programmer ignorance pet peeve's
For languages that don't support an until construct, chaining multiple NOTs makes our eyes bleed
Which one is easier to read?
This:
while (keypress != escape_key && keypress != alt_f4_key && keypress != ctrl_w_key)
Or this:
until (keypress == escape_key || keypress == alt_f4_key || keypress == ctrl_w_key)
I am of the opinion that the latter is way easier to grok than the first one. The first one involves far too many NOTs and AND conditions makes the logic more sticky, it forces you to read the entire expression before you can be sure that your code is indeed correct, and it will be far more harder to read if your logic involves complex logic (entails chaining more ANDs, very sticky).
During college, De Morgan theorem is taught in our class. I really appreciate that logics can be simplified using his theorem. So for language construct that doesn't support until statement, use this:
while !(keypress == escape_key || keypress == alt_f4_key || keypress == ctrl_w_key)
But since C don't support parenthesis-less while/if statement, we need to add parenthesis on our DeMorgan'd code:
while (!(keypress == escape_key || keypress == alt_f4_key || keypress == ctrl_w_key))
And that's what could have prompted Dan C's comment that the DeMorgan'd code hurts his eyes more on my answer on favorite programmer ignorance pet peeve's
But really, the DeMorgan'd code is way easier to read than having multiple NOTS and sticky ANDs
[EDIT]
Your code (the DeMorgan'd one):
object value = GetValueFromSomeAPIOrOtherMethod();
if ( value == null || string.IsNullOrEmpty(value.Prop)
|| !possibleValues.Contains(value.prop) )
{
// Do my stuff here, like error handling
}
..is perfectly fine. In fact, that's what most programmers(especially from languages that don't have try/catch/finally constructs from the get-go) do to make sure that conditions are met(e.g. no using of null pointers, has proper values, etc) before continuing with the operations.
Note: I took the liberty of removing superfluous parenthesis on your code, maybe you came from Delphi/Pascal language.
I do it when my brain can easily wrap itself around the logic of the success but it is cumbersome to understand the logic of the failure.
I usually just put a comment "// no op" so people know it isn't a mistake.
This is not a good practice. If you were using ruby you'd do:
unless condition
do something
end
If your language doesn't allow that, instead of doing
if(a){}else{something}
do
if(!a){something}
I find it to be unacceptable (even though I'm sure I've done it in the past) to have an empty block like that. It implies that something should be done.
I see the other questions state that it's more readable the second way. Personally, I say neither of your examples is particularly readable. The examples you provided are begging for an "IsValueValid(...)" method.
I occasionally find myself in a related but slightly different situation:
if ( TheMainThingIsNormal () )
; // nothing special to do
else if ( SomethingElseIsSpecial () ) // only possible/meaningful if ! TheMainThingIsNormal ()
DoSomethingSpecial ();
else if ( TheOtherThingIsSpecial () )
DoSomethingElseSpecial ();
else // ... you see where I'm going here
// and then finish up
The only way to take out the empty block is to create more nesting:
if ( ! TheMainThingIsNormal () )
{
if ( SomethingElseIsSpecial () )
DoSomethingSpecial ();
else if ( TheOtherThingIsSpecial () )
DoSomethingElseSpecial ();
else // ...
}
I'm not checking for exception or validation conditions -- I'm just taking care of special or one-off cases -- so I can't just bail out early.
My answer would usually be no....but i think good programming style is based on consistency.....
so if i have a lot of expressions that look like
if (condition)
{
// do something
}
else
{
// do something else
}
Then an occasional "empty" if block is fine e.g.
if (condition)
{ } // do nothing
else
{
// do something else
}
The reason for this is that if your eyes sees something several times, their less likely to notice a change e.g. a tiny "!". So even though its a bad thing to do in isolation, its far likely to make someone maintaining the code in future realize that this particular if..else... is different from the rest...
The other specific scenerio where it might be acceptable is for some kind of state machine logic e.g.
if (!step1done)
{} // do nothing, but we might decide to put something in here later
else if (!step2done)
{
// do stuff here
}
else if (!step3done)
{
// do stuff here
}
This is clearly highlighting the sequential flow of the states, the steps performed at each (even if its nothing). Id prefer it over something like...
if (step1done && !step2Done)
{
// do stuff here
}
if (step1done && step2done && !state3Done)
{
// do stuff here
}
I like the second version. It makes code more clean. Actually this is one of the things I would ask to correct during the code review.
I always try and refactor out big conditions like this into a property or method, for readability. So this:
object value = GetValueFromSomeAPIOrOtherMethod();
if((value == null) || (string.IsNullOrEmpty(value.Prop)) || (!possibleValues.Contains(value.prop)))
{
// Do my stuff here, like error handling
}
becomes something like this:
object value = GetValueFromSomeAPIOrOtherMethod();
if (IsValueUnacceptable(value))
{
// Do my stuff here, like error handling
}
...
/// <summary>
/// Determines if the value is acceptable.
/// </summary>
/// <param name="value">The value to criticize.</param>
private bool IsValueUnacceptable(object value)
{
return (value == null) || (string.IsNullOrEmpty(value.Prop)) || (!possibleValues.Contains(value.prop))
}
Now you can always reuse the method/property if needed, and you don't have to think too much in the consuming method.
Of course, IsValueUnacceptable would probably be a more specific name.
1st:
object value = GetValueFromSomeAPIOrOtherMethod();
var isValidValue = (value != null) && (!string.IsNullOrEmpty(value.Prop)) && (possibleValues.Contains(value.prop));
if(!isValidValue)
{
// Do my stuff here, like error handling
}
2cnd:
object value = GetValueFromSomeAPIOrOtherMethod();
if(!isValidAPIValue(value))
{
// Do my stuff here, like error handling
}
Are all the expressions really the same? In languages that support short-circuiting, making the change between ands and ors can be fatal. Remember &&'s use as a guard to prevent the other conditions from even being checked.
Be careful when converting. There are more mistakes made than you would expect.
In these cases you may wish to abstract the validation logic into the class itself to help un-clutter your application code.
For example
class MyClass
{
public string Prop{ get; set; }
// ... snip ...
public bool IsValid
{
bool valid = false;
if((value != null) &&
(!string.IsNullOrEmpty(value.Prop)) &&
(possibleValues.Contains(value.prop)))
{
valid = true
}
return valid;
}
// ...snip...
}
Now your application code
MyClass = value = GetValueFromSomewhere();
if( value.IsValie == false )
{
// Handle bad case here...
}
I'm a fan of DeMorgan's Rule which takes your ex3 and produces your ex2. An empty if block is a mental block imo. You have to stop to read the nothing that exists - then you have to wonder why.
If you have to leave comments like // This left blank on purpose; then the code isn't very self-explanatory.
The style that follow to have one block empty of if-else is considered as a bad style..
for good programming practice if you dont have to write in if block you need to put (!) 'Not' in if block ..no need to write else
If(condition)
//blank
else
//code
can be replaced as
if(!condition)
//code
this is a saving of extra line of code also..
I wouldn't do this in C#. But I do it in Python, because Python has a keyword that means "don't do anything":
if primary_condition:
pass
elif secondary_condition1:
do_one_thing()
elif secondary_condition2:
do_another_thing()
You could say that { } is functionally equivalent to pass, which it is. But it's not (to humans) semantically equivalent. pass means "do nothing," while to me, { } typically means "there used to be code here and now there isn't."
But in general, if I get to the point where it's even an issue whether sticking a ! in front of a condition makes it harder to read, I've got a problem. If I find myself writing code like this:
while (keypress != escape_key && keypress != alt_f4_key && keypress != ctrl_w_key)
it's pretty clear to me that what I'm actually going to want over the long term is more like this:
var activeKeys = new[] { escape_key, alt_f4_key, ctrl_w_key };
while (!activeKeys.Contains(keypress))
because that makes explicit a concept ("these keys are active") that's only implicit in the preceding code, and makes the logic "this is what you happens when an inactive key is pressed" instead of "this is what happens when a key that's not one ESC, ALT+F4 or CTRL+W is pressed."
According to the requirement we have to return a collection either in reverse order or as
it is. We, beginning level programmer designed the collection as follow :(sample is given)
namespace Linqfying
{
class linqy
{
static void Main()
{
InvestigationReport rpt=new InvestigationReport();
// rpt.GetDocuments(true) refers
// to return the collection in reverse order
foreach( EnquiryDocument doc in rpt.GetDocuments(true) )
{
// printing document title and author name
}
}
}
class EnquiryDocument
{
string _docTitle;
string _docAuthor;
// properties to get and set doc title and author name goes below
public EnquiryDocument(string title,string author)
{
_docAuthor = author;
_docTitle = title;
}
public EnquiryDocument(){}
}
class InvestigationReport
{
EnquiryDocument[] docs=new EnquiryDocument[3];
public IEnumerable<EnquiryDocument> GetDocuments(bool IsReverseOrder)
{
/* some business logic to retrieve the document
docs[0]=new EnquiryDocument("FundAbuse","Margon");
docs[1]=new EnquiryDocument("Sexual Harassment","Philliphe");
docs[2]=new EnquiryDocument("Missing Resource","Goel");
*/
//if reverse order is preferred
if(IsReverseOrder)
{
for (int i = docs.Length; i != 0; i--)
yield return docs[i-1];
}
else
{
foreach (EnquiryDocument doc in docs)
{
yield return doc;
}
}
}
}
}
Question :
Can we use other collection type to improve efficiency ?
Mixing of Collection with LINQ reduce the code ? (We are not familiar with LINQ)
Looks fine to me. Yes, you could use the Reverse extension method... but that won't be as efficient as what you've got.
How much do you care about the efficiency though? I'd go with the most readable solution (namely Reverse) until you know that efficiency is a problem. Unless the collection is large, it's unlikely to be an issue.
If you've got the "raw data" as an array, then your use of an iterator block will be more efficient than calling Reverse. The Reverse method will buffer up all the data before yielding it one item at a time - just like your own code does, really. However, simply calling Reverse would be a lot simpler...
Aside from anything else, I'd say it's well worth you learning LINQ - at least LINQ to Objects. It can make processing data much, much cleaner than before.
Two questions:
Does the code you currently have work?
Have you identified this piece of code as being your performance bottleneck?
If the answer to either of those questions is no, don't worry about it. Just make it work and move on. There's nothing grossly wrong about the code, so no need to fret! Spend your time building new functionality instead. Save LINQ for a new problem you haven't already solved.
Actually this task seems pretty straightforward. I'd actually just use the Reverse method on a Generic List.
This should already be well-optimized.
Your GetDocuments method has a return type of IEnumerable so there is no need to even loop over your array when IsReverseOrder is false, you can just return it as is as Array type is IEnumerable...
As for when IsReverseOrder is true you can use either Array.Reverse or the Linq Reverse() extension method to reduce the amount of code.
I frequently have code that looks something like this:
if (itm != null)
{
foreach (type x in itm.subItems())
{
//dostuff
}
}
//do more stuff
In situations where //do more stuff is omitted, it is very easy to avoid the extra foreach loop. By exitting scope using the appropriate command (depending on what is going on, this generally would mean a return statement or a continue statement).
This type of thing tends to result in arrow code. I currently have a few ways to deal with this:
Use code like itm = itm == null ? itm.subItems() : emptyArray
Allow arrow code
Use goto
Use evil scoping hacks (wrapping the whole thing, if statement in all, in a scope and then breaking out of it). In my opinion evil scoping hacks are basically equivalent to goto except uglier and harder to read, so I don't consider this a valid solution.
Refactor some of the chunks into new methods. There are in fact a few cases where this probably is a good solution, but mostly it's not appropriate since the null references are mainly error conditions from MS-functions.
Anyone care to offer a response on what approaches are considered preferable?
If you're using C# 3, you could always write an extension method:
public static IEnumerable<SubItem> SafeSubItems(this ItemType item)
{
return item == null ? Enumerable.Empty<SubItem> : source.SubItems();
}
Then just write:
foreach (SubItem x in itm.SafeSubItems())
{
// do stuff
}
// do more stuff
The key thing is that extension methods can be called even "on" null references.
What would be nice would be a "null-safe dereferencing" operator, so we could write:
// Not valid C# code!
foreach (SubItem x in itm?.SubItems() ?? Enumerable.Empty<SubItem>())
{
}
Or just define an EmptyIfNull extension method on IEnumerable<T> and use
// Not valid C# code!
foreach (SubItem x in (itm?.SubItems()).EmptyIfNull())
{
}
You could use the Coalesce operator (coded as a double question mark, ??, .net 2 upwards). This'll return the first non-null value in a list of values, so in this snippet...
MyClass o1 = null;
MyClass o2 = new MyClass ();
MyClass o3 = null;
return o1 ?? o2 ?? o3;
...o2 would be returned.
So you could re-code your original code sample as
foreach (type x in (itm ?? emptyArray).subItems())
{
//dostuff
}
//do more stuff
However, personally I don't mind the nesting. It's instantly clear what's going on. I find the Coalesce operator a little harder to read, and that little nest is a small price to pay for clarity.
I like less nesting, for me it reads better. No goto please :)
I keep methods short, so it is usually a return for that scenario.
if (itm == null) return;
foreach (type x in itm.subItems())
{
//dostuff
}
If the more stuff is needed, are simple statements and can be done before the foreach, you can:
if (itm == null)
{
//do more stuff
return;
}
foreach (type x in itm.subItems())
{
//dostuff
}
If the above is not the case, it is likely the method is too long and some of it would be moved away anyway. Probably:
if( itm != null ) SomeActionOnSubItems(itm.subItems);
// do more stuff (can be some method calls depending on level of abstraction).
Personally, I'd probably leave the structure the way you have it.
The first option (itm = itm == null ? itm.subItems() : emptyArray) seems less nasty than the others, but I still like your original better.
The problem is, from another developer's perspective, anything else is going to make your code less obvious. If there is a foreach running through a collection, I expect that the collection will (at least normally) have items contained in there. If the collection could be empty, that's not going to be obvious to other people without comments (which take longer to write than the if check).
Doing any of the hacks to avoid the if check just seems like you're trying to be too clever.