Reputation: 32645
Is it bad to check if an array is not empty by using any?
method?
a = [1,2,3]
a.any?
=> true
a.clear
a.any?
=> false
Or is it better to use unless a.empty?
?
Upvotes: 221
Views: 303063
Reputation: 2902
true
or if its empty.The method empty?
comes from the Array class
http://ruby-doc.org/core-2.0.0/Array.html#method-i-empty-3F
It's used to check if the array contains something or not. This includes things that evaluate to false
, such as nil
and false
.
>> a = []
=> []
>> a.empty?
=> true
>> a = [nil, false]
=> [nil, false]
>> a.empty?
=> false
>> a = [nil]
=> [nil]
>> a.empty?
=> false
The method any?
comes from the Enumerable module.
http://ruby-doc.org/core-2.0.0/Enumerable.html#method-i-any-3F
It's used to evaluate if "any" value in the array evaluates to true
.
Similar methods to this are none?
, all?
and one?
, where they all just check to see how many times true could be evaluated. which has nothing to do with the count of values found in a array.
case 1
>> a = []
=> []
>> a.any?
=> false
>> a.one?
=> false
>> a.all?
=> true
>> a.none?
=> true
case 2
>> a = [nil, true]
=> [nil, true]
>> a.any?
=> true
>> a.one?
=> true
>> a.all?
=> false
>> a.none?
=> false
case 3
>> a = [true, true]
=> [true, true]
>> a.any?
=> true
>> a.one?
=> false
>> a.all?
=> true
>> a.none?
=> false
Upvotes: 96
Reputation: 27793
Avoid any?
for large arrays.
any?
is O(n)
empty?
is O(1)
any?
does not check the length but actually scans the whole array for truthy elements.
static VALUE
rb_ary_any_p(VALUE ary)
{
long i, len = RARRAY_LEN(ary);
const VALUE *ptr = RARRAY_CONST_PTR(ary);
if (!len) return Qfalse;
if (!rb_block_given_p()) {
for (i = 0; i < len; ++i) if (RTEST(ptr[i])) return Qtrue;
}
else {
for (i = 0; i < RARRAY_LEN(ary); ++i) {
if (RTEST(rb_yield(RARRAY_AREF(ary, i)))) return Qtrue;
}
}
return Qfalse;
}
empty?
on the other hand checks the length of the array only.
static VALUE
rb_ary_empty_p(VALUE ary)
{
if (RARRAY_LEN(ary) == 0)
return Qtrue;
return Qfalse;
}
The difference is relevant if you have "sparse" arrays that start with lots of nil
values, like for example an array that was just created.
Upvotes: 36
Reputation: 352
I don't think it's bad to use any?
at all. I use it a lot. It's clear and concise.
However if you are concerned about all nil
values throwing it off, then you are really asking if the array has size > 0
. In that case, this dead simple extension (NOT optimized, monkey-style) would get you close.
Object.class_eval do
def size?
respond_to?(:size) && size > 0
end
end
> "foo".size?
=> true
> "".size?
=> false
> " ".size?
=> true
> [].size?
=> false
> [11,22].size?
=> true
> [nil].size?
=> true
This is fairly descriptive, logically asking "does this object have a size?". And it's concise, and it doesn't require ActiveSupport. And it's easy to build on.
Some extras to think about:
present?
from ActiveSupport.String
, that ignores whitespace (like present?
does).length?
for String
or other types where it might be more descriptive.Integer
and other Numeric
types, so that a logical zero returns false
.Upvotes: 1
Reputation: 140
I'll suggest using unless
and blank
to check is empty or not.
Example :
unless a.blank?
a = "Is not empty"
end
This will know 'a' empty or not. If 'a' is blank then the below code will not run.
Upvotes: 7
Reputation: 1268
Prefixing the statement with an exclamation mark will let you know whether the array is not empty. So in your case -
a = [1,2,3]
!a.empty?
=> true
Upvotes: 34
Reputation: 54762
any?
isn't the same as not empty?
in some cases.
>> [nil, 1].any?
=> true
>> [nil, nil].any?
=> false
From the documentation:
If the block is not given, Ruby adds an implicit block of {|obj| obj} (that is any? will return true if at least one of the collection members is not false or nil).
Upvotes: 277