我收集了一些极端案例和脑筋急转弯,总是想听到更多。这个页面只涵盖了c#语言的一些细节,但我也发现了。net核心的东西也很有趣。例如,这里有一个没有在页面上,但我觉得不可思议:

string x = new string(new char[0]);
string y = new string(new char[0]);
Console.WriteLine(object.ReferenceEquals(x, y));

我希望输出False -毕竟,“new”(具有引用类型)总是创建一个新对象,不是吗?c#和CLI的规范都表明应该这样做。嗯,在这个特殊情况下不是这样。它输出True,并且在我测试过的框架的每个版本上都是这样。(不可否认,我还没有在Mono上尝试过……)

只是为了澄清,这只是我正在寻找的事情的一个例子-我并不是特别寻找对这个奇怪现象的讨论/解释。(这和普通的弦乐实习不一样;特别地,当调用构造函数时,字符串实习通常不会发生。)我真的是在要求类似的奇怪行为。

还有其他的宝藏吗?


当前回答

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。”

其他回答

即使枚举函数重载,它们也应该使0为整数。

我知道c#核心团队将0映射到enum的基本原理,但是,它仍然没有像它应该的那样正交。来自Npgsql的例子。

测试的例子:

namespace Craft
{
    enum Symbol { Alpha = 1, Beta = 2, Gamma = 3, Delta = 4 };


   class Mate
    {
        static void Main(string[] args)
        {

            JustTest(Symbol.Alpha); // enum
            JustTest(0); // why enum
            JustTest((int)0); // why still enum

            int i = 0;

            JustTest(Convert.ToInt32(0)); // have to use Convert.ToInt32 to convince the compiler to make the call site use the object version

            JustTest(i); // it's ok from down here and below
            JustTest(1);
            JustTest("string");
            JustTest(Guid.NewGuid());
            JustTest(new DataTable());

            Console.ReadLine();
        }

        static void JustTest(Symbol a)
        {
            Console.WriteLine("Enum");
        }

        static void JustTest(object o)
        {
            Console.WriteLine("Object");
        }
    }
}

下面将打印False而不是抛出溢出异常:

Console.WriteLine("{0}", yep(int.MaxValue ));


private bool yep( int val )
{
    return ( 0 < val * 2);
}

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。

我不确定你是否会说这是Windows Vista/7的怪癖或。net的怪癖,但它让我挠头了好一阵子。

string filename = @"c:\program files\my folder\test.txt";
System.IO.File.WriteAllText(filename, "Hello world.");
bool exists = System.IO.File.Exists(filename); // returns true;
string text = System.IO.File.ReadAllText(filename); // Returns "Hello world."

在Windows Vista/7中,文件实际上会被写入C:\Users\<username>\Virtual Store\Program Files\my folder\test.txt

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.