前两种我都可以接受。我将避免使用最后一种方法，因为在引号之间加空格很容易引入错误。这种特殊的缺陷很难通过观察发现。假设没有错别字，所有这些在语义上都是等价的。

(编辑)

另外，为了保持一致性，你可能总是想使用string或string，但这只是我的想法。

前两种我都可以接受。我将避免使用最后一种方法，因为在引号之间加空格很容易引入错误。这种特殊的缺陷很难通过观察发现。假设没有错别字，所有这些在语义上都是等价的。

(编辑)

另外，为了保持一致性，你可能总是想使用string或string，但这只是我的想法。

The empty string is like empty set just a name that everybody uses to call "". Also in formal languages strings created from an alphabet that have zero length are called the empty string. Both set and string have a special symbol for it. Empty string: ε and empty set: ∅. If you want to talk about this zero length string you will call it the empty string so everybody knows exactly what you are referring to. Now in case you name it the empty string why not use string.Empty in code, its shows the intention is explicit. Downside is that it’s not a constant and therefore not available everywhere, like in attributes. (It's not a constant for some technical reasons, see the reference source.)

最好的代码是没有代码:

编码的基本性质是，作为程序员，我们的任务是认识到我们所做的每一个决定都是一种权衡。从简洁开始。根据测试的需要增加其他维度。

因此，代码越少越好:更喜欢“”而不是字符串。Empty或String.Empty。这两篇文章的篇幅长了六倍，但没有额外的好处——当然也没有额外的清晰度，因为它们表达的信息完全相同。

I strongly prefer String.Empty, aside from the other reasons to ensure you know what it is and that you have not accidentally removed the contents, but primarily for internationalization. If I see a string in quotes then I always have to wonder whether that is new code and it should be put into a string table. So every time code gets changed/reviewed you need to look for "something in quotes" and yes you can filter out the empty strings but I tell people it is good practice to never put strings in quotes unless you know it won't get localized.

如果你想恶作剧某人，在他们的代码中加入“‍”。这不是空字符串，它是“\u200D”。你不能用string.Empty欺骗别人。