你不能创建一个“const”数组，因为数组是对象，只能是对象 在运行时创建，const实体在编译时解析。

你可以将数组声明为“readonly”。这是 与const的效果相同，只是该值可以在运行时设置。它只能是 设置一次，之后它就是一个只读(即const)值。

数组可能是一种只能在这里求值的东西 运行时。常量必须在编译时求值。尝试使用"readonly" 而不是"const"。

我相信你只能让它只读。

是的，但是你需要声明它为readonly而不是const:

public static readonly string[] Titles = { "German", "Spanish", "Corrects", "Wrongs" };

原因是const只能应用于编译时已知值的字段。您所展示的数组初始化器不是c#中的常量表达式，因此会产生编译器错误。

声明它为readonly可以解决这个问题，因为值直到运行时才初始化(尽管可以保证在第一次使用数组之前已经初始化)。

根据你最终想要实现的目标，你也可以考虑声明一个枚举:

public enum Titles { German, Spanish, Corrects, Wrongs };

可以将数组声明为只读数组，但请记住，可以更改只读数组的元素。

public readonly string[] Titles = { "German", "Spanish", "Corrects", "Wrongs" };
...
Titles[0] = "bla";

可以考虑像Cody建议的那样使用enum或IList。

public readonly IList<string> ITitles = new List<string> {"German", "Spanish", "Corrects", "Wrongs" }.AsReadOnly();

.NET Framework v4.5+解决方案，改进了tdbeckett的答案:

using System.Collections.ObjectModel;

// ...

public ReadOnlyCollection<string> Titles { get; } = new ReadOnlyCollection<string>(
  new string[] { "German", "Spanish", "Corrects", "Wrongs" }
);

注意:假定集合在概念上是常量，在类级别声明它时将其设置为静态可能是有意义的。

上面的:

Initializes the property's implicit backing field once with the array. Note that { get; } - i.e., declaring only a property getter - is what makes the property itself implicitly read-only (trying to combine readonly with { get; } is actually a syntax error). Alternatively, you could just omit the { get; } and add readonly to create a field instead of a property, as in the question, but exposing public data members as properties rather than fields is a good habit to form. Creates an array-like structure (allowing indexed access) that is truly and robustly read-only (conceptually constant, once created), both with respect to: preventing modification of the collection as a whole (such as by removing or adding elements, or by assigning a new collection to the variable). preventing modification of individual elements. (Even indirect modification isn't possible - unlike with an IReadOnlyList<T> solution, where a (string[]) cast can be used to gain write access to the elements, as shown in mjepsen's helpful answer. The same vulnerability applies to the IReadOnlyCollection<T> interface, which, despite the similarity in name to class ReadOnlyCollection, does not even support indexed access, making it fundamentally unsuitable for providing array-like access.)