469

Is it possible to create an empty array without specifying the size?

For example, I created:

String[] a = new String[5];

Can we create the above string array without the size?

2

15 Answers 15

556

If you are going to use a collection that you don't know the size of in advance, there are better options than arrays.

Use a List<string> instead - it will allow you to add as many items as you need and if you need to return an array, call ToArray() on the variable.

var listOfStrings = new List<string>();

// do stuff...

string[] arrayOfStrings = listOfStrings.ToArray();

If you must create an empty array you can do this:

string[] emptyStringArray = new string[0]; 

As of .NET 4.6, the following would be recommended for an empty array:

String[] a = Array.Empty<string>();

With C# 12/.NET8, there's an even more succinct way (using collection expressions):

String[] a = [];
Sign up to request clarification or add additional context in comments.

11 Comments

@Oded -- string[] emptyStringArray = new string[0]; does not result in an empty array, does it? It looks like it's an array with one element where that element is null.
@roryap - No. It results in a string[] that has no elements. If you try to access emptyStringArray[0], you will get a IndexOutOfRangeException
@Oded -- Thanks, I'm fairly new to C#. In VB, the index provided is the upper bound, not the number of elements.
What would you consider better: var strings = new string[]{}; or var strings = new string[0]; BTW: I consider an empty array a perfectly valid default for method parameters: public void EditItems(IEnumerable<Item> toEdit, IEnumerable<long> toDelete = new long[]{})
@RickO'Shea - C++ is not C#. Stroustrup knows his C++ - not so sure he knows his C# and the .NET GC. Not gonna go into a religious war with you.
|
258

In .NET 4.6 the preferred way is to use a new method, Array.Empty:

String[] a = Array.Empty<string>();

The implementation is succinct, using how static members in generic classes behave in .Net:

public static T[] Empty<T>()
{
    return EmptyArray<T>.Value;
}

// Useful in number of places that return an empty byte array to avoid
// unnecessary memory allocation.
internal static class EmptyArray<T>
{
    public static readonly T[] Value = new T[0];
}

(code contract related code removed for clarity)

See also:

4 Comments

Definitely an improvement for readability from: Enumerable.Empty<T>().ToArray()
Even though this method is definitely preferred in most cases, it doesn't answer the original question. The OP wants to create an empty array. Array.Empty<T>() does not create an array. It returns a reference to a pre-allocated array.
Why is EmptyArray<T> a separate class instead of just having this be part of Array<T>?
@AaronFranke this is an internal class anyway, and the source code linked includes a comment that states this done to avoid unnecessary memory allocation. To be very honest I not sure what use an empty array is, so if microsoft has deemed its more efficient to just throw you a reference to a pre-determined one, so the compiler doesn't have to waste its time, I don't see anything wrong with that. I would prefer Array.Empty() simply because it clearly communicates the intention; if I saw T[0] of anything my first inclination would be to ask if this was an code error
219

Try this:

string[] a = new string[] { };

5 Comments

Expanding on this answer, you can also init the array with items without specifying the size OR type, the compiler will infer either from the initializer: var a = new []{"a", "b", "c"}; This is still a strongly typed string array.
Unhandled Exception: System.IndexOutOfRangeException: Index was outside the boun ds of the array. at ArrayClass.Main(String[] args). I faced this error after i changed my int[] variable = new int[]{}
@yogesh: That is strange. When for example writing int[] variable = new int[]{} and using it for example in a loop such as foreach (var s in variable){ Console.WriteLine(s);} the code is compiled to: int[] args1 = new int[0]; and foreach (int num in args1){Console.WriteLine(num);}. So there should be no difference between using new int[0] and new int[]{} as both get compiled to the same code.
@GlennGordon Absolutely, but that is new as of C# version 3.0 (from 2007, with Visual Studio 2008). That version also allows another simple format with var, although only for local variables (not for fields). However in C# 2.0 (Visual Studio 2005) and earlier, you had to use the syntax of this answer (or string[] a = new string[0];).
This has to be the accepted answer in all aspects, irrespective of the MS net framework versions.
39

You could inititialize it with a size of 0, but you will have to reinitialize it, when you know what the size is, as you cannot append to the array.

string[] a = new string[0];

Comments

11

There is not much point in declaring an array without size. An array is about size. When you declare an array of specific size, you specify the fixed number of slots available in a collection that can hold things, and accordingly memory is allocated. To add something to it, you will need to anyway reinitialize the existing array (even if you're resizing the array, see this thread). One of the rare cases where you would want to initialise an empty array would be to pass array as an argument.

If you want to define a collection when you do not know what size it could be of possibly, array is not your choice, but something like a List<T> or similar.

That said, the only way to declare an array without specifying size is to have an empty array of size 0. hemant and Alex Dn provides two ways. Another simpler alternative is to just:

string[] a = { };

[The elements inside the bracket should be implicitly convertible to type defined, for instance, string[] a = { "a", "b" };]

Or yet another:

var a = Enumerable.Empty<string>().ToArray();

Here is a more declarative way:

public static class Array<T>
{
    public static T[] Empty()
    {
        return Empty(0);
    }

    public static T[] Empty(int size)
    {
        return new T[size];
    }
}

Now you can call:

var a = Array<string>.Empty();

//or

var a = Array<string>.Empty(5);

12 Comments

I cannot think of any use except when you got to pass an array as a parameter. There are a few cases in reflection where a method accepts an array of objects and you might want to pass an empty array to effect default action. I will edit my answer.
You for example have an interface implemented by several classes returning an IEnumerable and one of the implementations do not have elements for the method and returns an empty array for example.
@IgnacioSolerGarcia I would return an array in that case if and only if it's an extremely performance critical application. I will say arrays are outdated and should be avoided if you can. See this by Lippert and this S.O. question
A use case for an empty array is simple - when you want to fill it with objects and you don't know how many you'll be adding!
@nawfal Array.Empty<T>() appeared in .NET Framework 4.6, so one year after your answer. Apologies!
|
11

Simple and elegant!

string[] array = {}

4 Comments

I would change array to just a, as array is a keyword when capitalized. Just bad practice to use a keyword name as a variable name - even if the case is different. And basically the same as my answer except I had String.Empty in there.
1. array is not a c# keyword. Array is a class and not a keyword 2. "a" is also bad practice (maybe even worse a bad practice than using keywords)
Being technical. Class, keyword, it defines an object type and is still bad. Why do you think a is bad?
Because non-descriptive and one-letter variable names are bad practice because they don't convey the reason behind defining them. "array" is certainly a better name than "a". A better name would be "emptyArray".
11

string[] a = new string[0];

or short notation:

string[] a = { };

The preferred way now is:

var a = Array.Empty<string>();

I have written a short regular expression that you can use in Visual Studio if you want to replace zero-length allocations e.g. new string[0]. Use Find (search) in Visual Studio with Regular Expression option turned on:

new[ ][a-zA-Z0-9]+\[0\]

Now Find All or F3 (Find Next) and replace all with Array.Empty<…>() !

Comments

11

Performance Rule CA1825: Avoid allocating zero-length arrays.

Rule discription: Initializing a zero-length array leads to an unnecessary memory allocation. Instead, use the statically allocated empty array instance by calling the Array.Empty method.

In your case:

var a = Array.Empty<string>(); 

Comments

4

You can define array size at runtime.

This will allow you to do whatever to dynamically compute the array's size. But, once defined the size is immutable.

Array a = Array.CreateInstance(typeof(string), 5);

2 Comments

Why do all that? At runtime you can define the array size from a variable normally: int i = 5; string[] a = new string[i];
Well, I guess with generics this appears to be obsolete.
3

I had tried:

string[] sample = new string[0];

But I could only insert one string into it, and then I got an exceptionOutOfBound error, so I just simply put a size for it, like

string[] sample = new string[100];

Or another way that work for me:

List<string> sample = new List<string>();

Assigning Value for list:

sample.Add(your input);

1 Comment

If you want to add to an array, you can use ar.Append(item) and assign it back to itself (creating a new array and replacing the old one) ar = ar.Append(item);
2

As I know you can't make array without size, but you can use

List<string> l = new List<string>() 

and then l.ToArray().

Comments

2

you can use the Array.Empty method (in .Net Core, at least)

string ToCsv(int[] myArr = null) { // null by default

    // affect an empty array if the myArr is null
    myArr ??= Array.Empty<int>();
    
    //... do stuff
    string csv = string.Join(",", myArr);

    return csv;
}

Comments

1

Combining @nawfal & @Kobi suggestions:

namespace Extensions
{
    /// <summary> Useful in number of places that return an empty byte array to avoid unnecessary memory allocation. </summary>
    public static class Array<T>
    {
        public static readonly T[] Empty = new T[0];
    }
}

Usage example:

Array<string>.Empty

UPDATE 2019-05-14

(credits to @Jaider ty)

Better use .Net API:

public static T[] Empty<T> ();

https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/api/system.array.empty?view=netframework-4.8

Applies to:

.NET Core: 3.0 Preview 5 2.2 2.1 2.0 1.1 1.0

.NET Framework: 4.8 4.7.2 4.7.1 4.7 4.6.2 4.6.1 4.6

.NET Standard: 2.1 Preview 2.0 1.6 1.5 1.4 1.3

...

HTH

2 Comments

In .NET Core 2, there is already an extension for it, arr = Array.Empty<string>();
iirc, in .NetStandart [4.something] - there is also.
0

Here is a real world example. In this it is necessary to initialize the array foundFiles first to zero length.

(As emphasized in other answers: This initializes not an element and especially not an element with index zero because that would mean the array had length 1. The array has zero length after this line!).

If the part = string[0] is omitted, there is a compiler error!

This is because of the catch block without rethrow. The C# compiler recognizes the code path, that the function Directory.GetFiles() can throw an Exception, so that the array could be uninitialized.

Before anyone says, not rethrowing the exception would be bad error handling: This is not true. Error handling has to fit the requirements.

In this case it is assumed that the program should continue in case of a directory which cannot be read, and not break- the best example is a function traversing through a directory structure. Here the error handling is just logging it. Of course this could be done better, e.g. collecting all directories with failed GetFiles(Dir) calls in a list, but this will lead too far here.

It is enough to state that avoiding throw is a valid scenario, and so the array has to be initialized to length zero. It would be enough to do this in the catch block, but this would be bad style.

The call to GetFiles(Dir) resizes the array.

string[] foundFiles= new string[0];
string dir = @"c:\";
try
{
    foundFiles = Directory.GetFiles(dir);  // Remark; Array is resized from length zero
}
// Please add appropriate Exception handling yourself
catch (IOException)
{
  Console.WriteLine("Log: Warning! IOException while reading directory: " + dir);
  // throw; // This would throw Exception to caller and avoid compiler error
}

foreach (string filename in foundFiles)
    Console.WriteLine("Filename: " + filename);

Comments

-1

You can do:

string[] a = { String.Empty };

Note: OP meant not having to specify a size, not make an array sizeless

As if string[] a = {}; and the above really matter as far as their differences! The point to doing either one is only going to be instantiation or clearing the array before (re-)populating it.

8 Comments

Won't this create a string array of length 1?
True, but it's cleared. And OP asked to declare the array without having to state a size - this fits that.
And that deserves a downvote, why? OP meant not having to specify a size, not make an array sizeless.
@vapcguy I was the downvoter. I regret it. I have edited your answer to cancel my downvote. Your comment makes the question a bit dubious. Not sure if that is what OP meant.
The OP asked for an empty array. This array is not empty.
|

Start asking to get answers

Find the answer to your question by asking.

Ask question

Explore related questions

See similar questions with these tags.