这一点很简单，但我还是觉得很有趣。调用Foo后x的值是多少?

static int x = 0;

public static void Foo()
{
    try { return; }
    finally { x = 1; }
}

static void Main() { Foo(); }

Public Class Item
   Public ID As Guid
   Public Text As String

   Public Sub New(ByVal id As Guid, ByVal name As String)
      Me.ID = id
      Me.Text = name
   End Sub
End Class

Public Sub Load(sender As Object, e As EventArgs) Handles Me.Load
   Dim box As New ComboBox
   Me.Controls.Add(box)          'Sorry I forgot this line the first time.'
   Dim h As IntPtr = box.Handle  'Im not sure you need this but you might.'
   Try
      box.Items.Add(New Item(Guid.Empty, Nothing))
   Catch ex As Exception
      MsgBox(ex.ToString())
   End Try
End Sub

输出为“试图读取受保护的内存。”这表明其他记忆已经被破坏了。”

什么时候布尔值既不为真也不为假?

比尔发现你可以破解一个布尔值，如果a为真，B为真，(a和B)为假。

砍布尔值

我来派对晚了一点，但我有三四五

If you poll InvokeRequired on a control that hasn't been loaded/shown, it will say false - and blow up in your face if you try to change it from another thread (the solution is to reference this.Handle in the creator of the control). Another one which tripped me up is that given an assembly with: enum MyEnum { Red, Blue, } if you calculate MyEnum.Red.ToString() in another assembly, and in between times someone has recompiled your enum to: enum MyEnum { Black, Red, Blue, } at runtime, you will get "Black". I had a shared assembly with some handy constants in. My predecessor had left a load of ugly-looking get-only properties, I thought I'd get rid of the clutter and just use public const. I was more than a little surprised when VS compiled them to their values, and not references. If you implement a new method of an interface from another assembly, but you rebuild referencing the old version of that assembly, you get a TypeLoadException (no implementation of 'NewMethod'), even though you have implemented it (see here). Dictionary<,>: "The order in which the items are returned is undefined". This is horrible, because it can bite you sometimes, but work others, and if you've just blindly assumed that Dictionary is going to play nice ("why shouldn't it? I thought, List does"), you really have to have your nose in it before you finally start to question your assumption.

如果你有扩展方法:

public static bool? ToBoolean(this string s)
{
    bool result;

    if (bool.TryParse(s, out result))
        return result;
    else
        return null;
}

这段代码:

string nullStr = null;
var res = nullStr.ToBoolean();

这不会抛出异常，因为它是一个扩展方法(实际上是HelperClass.ToBoolean(null))，而不是一个实例方法。这可能会令人困惑。

我想我之前向您展示过这个，但我喜欢这里的乐趣——这需要一些调试才能跟踪!(原来的代码显然更加复杂和微妙……)

    static void Foo<T>() where T : new()
    {
        T t = new T();
        Console.WriteLine(t.ToString()); // works fine
        Console.WriteLine(t.GetHashCode()); // works fine
        Console.WriteLine(t.Equals(t)); // works fine

        // so it looks like an object and smells like an object...

        // but this throws a NullReferenceException...
        Console.WriteLine(t.GetType());
    }

那么T是什么?

答:任何可空<T> -如int?。所有的方法都被重写，除了GetType()不能;因此它被强制转换为object(因此为null)来调用object. gettype()…哪个调用null;-p

更新:情节变得越来越复杂……Ayende Rahien在他的博客上提出了类似的挑战，但使用了where T: class, new():

private static void Main() {
    CanThisHappen<MyFunnyType>();
}

public static void CanThisHappen<T>() where T : class, new() {
    var instance = new T(); // new() on a ref-type; should be non-null, then
    Debug.Assert(instance != null, "How did we break the CLR?");
}

但它是可以被打败的!使用与远程处理一样的间接方式;警告-以下是纯粹的邪恶:

class MyFunnyProxyAttribute : ProxyAttribute {
    public override MarshalByRefObject CreateInstance(Type serverType) {
        return null;
    }
}
[MyFunnyProxy]
class MyFunnyType : ContextBoundObject { }

在此之后，new()调用被重定向到代理(MyFunnyProxyAttribute)，该代理返回null。现在去洗眼睛!