string关键字可能使您感到困惑，因为它看起来与任何其他值类型声明完全相同，但它实际上是System的别名。在这个问题中解释的字符串。 此外，Visual Studio中的深蓝色和小写首字母可能会让人误以为它是结构体。

为什么字符串类型的默认值为空而不是空 字符串?

因为string是一个引用类型，所有引用类型的默认值都是null。

在我可以之前，测试我所有的字符串是否为null是非常烦人的 安全应用方法，如ToUpper()， StartWith()等…

这与引用类型的行为一致。在调用它们的实例成员之前，应该对空引用进行检查。

如果string的默认值是空字符串，我就不会有 来测试，我觉得它和另一个更一致 例如int或double这样的值类型。

将默认值分配给一个特定的引用类型而不是null会使它不一致。

此外，Nullable<String>也有意义。

Nullable<T>适用于值类型。值得注意的是，Nullable并没有在最初的。net平台上引入，所以如果他们改变了这一规则，就会有很多坏代码。(礼貌@jcolebrand)

因为字符串变量是引用，而不是实例。

在默认情况下将其初始化为Empty是可能的，但这将在整个板上引入许多不一致。

既然你提到了ToUpper()，这种用法是我如何找到这个线程的，我将分享这个快捷方式(字符串??" ") .ToUpper ():

    private string _city;
    public string City
    {
        get
        {
            return (this._city ?? "").ToUpper();
        }
        set
        {
            this._city = value;
        }
    }

似乎比:

        if(null != this._city)
        { this._city = this._city.ToUpper(); }

如果string的默认值是空字符串，我就不必进行测试

错了!更改默认值并不会改变它是引用类型的事实，并且有人仍然可以显式地将引用设置为空。

此外，Nullable<String>也有意义。

真正的点。不允许任何引用类型为空会更有意义，而需要Nullable<TheRefType>作为该特性。

那么为什么c#的设计者选择使用null作为字符串的默认值呢?

与其他引用类型的一致性。现在，为什么在引用类型中允许空呢?可能会让它感觉像C语言，尽管在一种也提供Nullable的语言中，这是一个有问题的设计决策。

最根本的原因/问题是CLS规范(定义了语言如何与。net交互)的设计者没有定义一种方法，通过这种方法，类成员可以指定它们必须直接被调用，而不是通过callvirt，而调用方不执行空引用检查;它也没有提供一种定义不受“正常”装箱约束的结构的方法。

Had the CLS specification defined such a means, then it would be possible for .net to consistently follow the lead established by the Common Object Model (COM), under which a null string reference was considered semantically equivalent to an empty string, and for other user-defined immutable class types which are supposed to have value semantics to likewise define default values. Essentially, what would happen would be for each member of String, e.g. Length to be written as something like [InvokableOnNull()] int String Length { get { if (this==null) return 0; else return _Length;} }. This approach would have offered very nice semantics for things which should behave like values, but because of implementation issues need to be stored on the heap. The biggest difficulty with this approach is that the semantics of conversion between such types and Object could get a little murky.

An alternative approach would have been to allow the definition of special structure types which did not inherit from Object but instead had custom boxing and unboxing operations (which would convert to/from some other class type). Under such an approach, there would be a class type NullableString which behaves as string does now, and a custom-boxed struct type String, which would hold a single private field Value of type String. Attempting to convert a String to NullableString or Object would return Value if non-null, or String.Empty if null. Attempting to cast to String, a non-null reference to a NullableString instance would store the reference in Value (perhaps storing null if the length was zero); casting any other reference would throw an exception.

Even though strings have to be stored on the heap, there is conceptually no reason why they shouldn't behave like value types that have a non-null default value. Having them be stored as a "normal" structure which held a reference would have been efficient for code that used them as type "string", but would have added an extra layer of indirection and inefficiency when casting to "object". While I don't foresee .net adding either of the above features at this late date, perhaps designers of future frameworks might consider including them.