This one's really an offshoot of this question, but I think it deserves its own answer.
According to section 15.13 of the ECMA-334 (on the using
statement, below referred to as resource-acquisition):
Local variables declared in a resource-acquisition are read-only, and shall include an initializer. A compile-time error occurs if the embedded statement attempts to modify these local variables (via assignment or the
++
and--
operators) or pass them asref
orout
parameters.
This seems to explain why the code below is illegal.
struct Mutable : IDisposable
{
public int Field;
public void SetField(int value) { Field = value; }
public void Dispose() { }
}
using (var m = new Mutable())
{
// This results in a compiler error.
m.Field = 10;
}
But what about this?
using (var e = new Mutable())
{
// This is doing exactly the same thing, but it compiles and runs just fine.
e.SetField(10);
}
Is the above snippet undefined and/or illegal in C#? If it's legal, what is the relationship between this code and the excerpt from the spec above? If it's illegal, why does it work? Is there some subtle loophole that permits it, or is the fact that it works attributable only to mere luck (so that one shouldn't ever rely on the functionality of such seemingly harmless-looking code)?
I would read the standard in such a way that
using( var m = new Mutable() )
{
m = new Mutable();
}
is forbidden - with reason that seem obious. Why for the struct Mutable it is not allowed beats me. Because for a class the code is legal and compiles fine...(object type i know..)
Also I do not see a reason why changing the contents of the value type does endanger the RA. Someone care to explain?
Maybe someone doing the syntx checking just misread the standard ;-)
Mario
I suspect the reason it compiles and runs is that SetField(int)
is a function call, not an assignment or ref
or out
parameter call. The compiler has no way of knowing (in general) whether SetField(int)
is going to mutate the variable or not.
This appears completely legal according to the spec.
And consider the alternatives. Static analysis to determine whether a given function call is going to mutate a value is clearly cost prohibitive in the C# compiler. The spec is designed to avoid that situation in all cases.
The other alternative would be for C# to not allow any method calls on value type variables declared in a using
statement. That might not be a bad idea, since implementing IDisposable
on a struct is just asking for trouble anyway. But when the C# language was first developed, I think they had high hopes for using structs in lots of interesting ways (as the GetEnumerator()
example that you originally used demonstrates).
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