看看这段c#代码:
byte x = 1;
byte y = 2;
byte z = x + y; // ERROR: Cannot implicitly convert type 'int' to 'byte'
在字节(或短)类型上执行的任何数学运算的结果都隐式地转换回整数。解决方案是显式地将结果转换回一个字节:
byte z = (byte)(x + y); // this works
我想知道的是为什么?是建筑吗?哲学吗?
我们有:
Int + Int = Int 长+长=长 浮+浮=浮 Double + Double = Double
所以为什么不呢:
字节+字节=字节 空头+空头=空头?
一点背景知识:我正在对“小数字”(即< 8)执行一个长列表的计算，并将中间结果存储在一个大数组中。使用字节数组(而不是int数组)更快(因为缓存命中)。但是大量的字节强制转换散布在代码中，使得代码更加难以阅读。
当前回答
This was probably a practical decision on the part of the language designers. After all, an int is an Int32, a 32-bit signed integer. Whenever you do an integer operation on a type smaller than int, it's going to be converted to a 32 bit signed int by most any 32 bit CPU anyway. That, combined with the likelihood of overflowing small integers, probably sealed the deal. It saves you from the chore of continuously checking for over/under-flow, and when the final result of an expression on bytes would be in range, despite the fact that at some intermediate stage it would be out of range, you get a correct result.
另一种想法是:必须模拟这些类型上的溢出/欠流，因为它不会自然地发生在最可能的目标cpu上。何苦呢?
其他回答
根据c#语言规范1.6.7.5 7.2.6.2二进制数值提升，如果不能将操作数归入其他类别，则将两个操作数都转换为int。我的猜测是，他们没有重载+操作符以将字节作为参数，但希望它的行为有点正常，所以他们只是使用int数据类型。
c#语言规范
我记得曾经读过Jon Skeet(现在找不到了，我会继续找)关于字节如何实际上不会重载+操作符的内容。事实上，当像您的示例中那样添加两个字节时，每个字节实际上都被隐式转换为int。其结果显然是一个整型。至于为什么要这样设计，我将等待乔恩·斯基特自己发布:)
编辑:找到了!这里有关于这个话题的很棒的信息。
就“为什么会发生这种情况”而言，这是因为正如其他人所说的那样，c#中没有为byte、sbyte、short或ushort的算术定义任何操作符。这个答案是关于为什么没有定义这些操作符。
我相信这主要是为了性能。处理器具有本地操作，可以非常快速地处理32位的算术。可以自动地将结果转换回字节，但如果您不希望发生这种行为，则会导致性能损失。
我认为这在一个带注释的c#标准中提到过。看……
编辑:令人恼火的是，我现在已经查看了带注释的ECMA c# 2规范、带注释的MS c# 3规范和注释的CLI规范，但据我所知，它们都没有提到这一点。我相信我已经看到了上面给出的理由，但如果我知道在哪里，我就被吹了。对不起，参考粉丝们:(
除了所有其他伟大的评论，我想我要添加一个小花絮。很多评论都想知道为什么int、long和几乎任何其他数字类型都不遵循这个规则…返回一个“更大”的类型以响应算术。
A lot of answers have had to do with performance (well, 32bits is faster than 8bits). In reality, an 8bit number is still a 32bit number to a 32bit CPU....even if you add two bytes, the chunk of data the cpu operates on is going to be 32bits regardless...so adding ints is not going to be any "faster" than adding two bytes...its all the same to the cpu. NOW, adding two ints WILL be faster than adding two longs on a 32bit processor, because adding two longs requires more microops since you're working with numbers wider than the processors word.
I think the fundamental reason for causing byte arithmetic to result in ints is pretty clear and straight forward: 8bits just doesn't go very far! :D With 8 bits, you have an unsigned range of 0-255. That's not a whole lot of room to work with...the likelyhood that you are going to run into a bytes limitations is VERY high when using them in arithmetic. However, the chance that you're going to run out of bits when working with ints, or longs, or doubles, etc. is significantly lower...low enough that we very rarely encounter the need for more.
从字节到int的自动转换是合乎逻辑的，因为字节的规模是如此之小。从整型到长型，从浮点数到双精度浮点数等自动转换是不符合逻辑的，因为这些数字具有显著的比例。
This was probably a practical decision on the part of the language designers. After all, an int is an Int32, a 32-bit signed integer. Whenever you do an integer operation on a type smaller than int, it's going to be converted to a 32 bit signed int by most any 32 bit CPU anyway. That, combined with the likelihood of overflowing small integers, probably sealed the deal. It saves you from the chore of continuously checking for over/under-flow, and when the final result of an expression on bytes would be in range, despite the fact that at some intermediate stage it would be out of range, you get a correct result.
另一种想法是:必须模拟这些类型上的溢出/欠流，因为它不会自然地发生在最可能的目标cpu上。何苦呢?
