Skip to main content

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

8
  • But that was my question, why not force them all to be static? Commented Apr 13, 2010 at 18:13
  • 1
    @Adam: But you could require the static keyword, instead of requiring its absence. Commented Apr 13, 2010 at 18:14
  • 2
    Because there's no way for them not to be static. Why require a redundant term? Commented Apr 13, 2010 at 18:14
  • 2
    Thats a good point, but leaving off highly descriptive terms is something I would consider confusing (...as I did :) ). Commented Apr 13, 2010 at 18:37
  • 1
    @Nick: It doesn't break any language rules; you stated that your objection was that it's leaving out "descriptive" information, but passing by value is descriptive, as is marking the constant as read only; they're also just as redundant as marking a constant static. If you know what const means in C#, then how does it possibly even appear to be breaking any language rules? Commented Apr 13, 2010 at 18:52