I have come across some code during a code-review where a old coworker has done the following:
const string replacement = @"";
This string is used in a regex expression as a replacement for what is matched. My question is what is the purpose of adding the @ literal sign to the beginning of an empty string. There should not be anything to literally interpret.
Would there be any difference in impact between: @"";
and "";
?
{null string literal} A null string literal is a string_literal with no string_elements between the quotation marks. 7. 6 An end of line cannot appear in a string_literal. 7.1/2. 7 {AI95-00285-01} No transformation is performed on the sequence of characters of a string_literal.
The Java programming language distinguishes between null and empty strings. An empty string is a string instance of zero length, whereas a null string has no value at all. An empty string is represented as "" . It is a character sequence of zero characters. A null string is represented by null .
it returns true if the string length is 0, false otherwise.
In formal treatments, the empty string is denoted with ε or sometimes Λ or λ. The empty string should not be confused with the empty language ∅, which is a formal language (i.e. a set of strings) that contains no strings, not even the empty string. The empty string has several properties: |ε| = 0.
This string is used in a regex expression
Regular expressions make heavy use of the \
character. For example, the following is a regular expression to match precentages from 0
to 100
that always have four decimal places:
^(100\.0000|[1-9]?\d\.\d{4})$
Because \
has to be escaped in the more common C# syntax to \\
the @""
form allows for the regex to be more easily read, compare:
"^(100\\.0000|[1-9]?\\d\\.\\d{4})$"
@"^(100\.0000|[1-9]?\d\.\d{4})$"
And for this reason people often get into the habit of using the @""
form when they are using regular expressions, even in cases where it makes no difference. For one thing, if they later change to something where it does make a difference the only need to change the expression, not the code for the string itself.
I would suggest that this is likely why your colleague used @""
rather than ""
in this particular case. The .NET produced is the same, but they are used to using @""
with regular expressions.
If you love us? You can donate to us via Paypal or buy me a coffee so we can maintain and grow! Thank you!
Donate Us With