In C#, why is string.Empty a field instead of a constant? [duplicate]

Question

Possible Duplicate:
Why isn't String.Empty a constant?

I can use "" but not string.Empty when specifying default values for method arguments in C# 4.0. This would make sense if string.Empty could mean something other than "", but it is a constant, it is just not declared as const.

Was this just a mistake on Microsoft's part that they can't clean up with const because it is too core to the language and would be a breaking change? Or was there a legitimate reason for making this a populated field instead of a const in the first place?

SLaks · Accepted Answer · 2011-08-10 18:26:14Z

It can't be a literal, or it wouldn't be accessible from the native half of String.

The comments (in the reference source) say:

// The Empty constant holds the empty string value. //We need to call the String constructor so that the compiler doesn't mark this as a literal. //Marking this as a literal would mean that it doesn't show up as a field which we can access //from native. public static readonly String Empty = "";

Interestingly, the comments say "we need to call the string constructor" but the code does not call the string constructor.

Collectives™ on Stack Overflow

In C#, why is string.Empty a field instead of a constant? [duplicate]

1 Answer 1

1 Comment

Linked

Hot Network Questions

Collectives™ on Stack Overflow

1 Answer 1

1 Comment

Linked

Related