在与同事讨论了c# 3中var关键字的使用后，我想知道人们对通过var适当使用类型推断的看法是什么?
例如，我很懒地在有问题的情况下使用var，例如:-
foreach(var item in someList) { // ... } // Type of 'item' not clear.
var something = someObject.SomeProperty; // Type of 'something' not clear.
var something = someMethod(); // Type of 'something' not clear.
var更合法的用法如下:-
var l = new List<string>(); // Obvious what l will be.
var s = new SomeClass(); // Obvious what s will be.
有趣的是，LINQ似乎是一个灰色区域，例如:-
var results = from r in dataContext.SomeTable
select r; // Not *entirely clear* what results will be here.
结果很明显，因为它将是一个实现IEnumerable的类型，但它并不完全明显，与var声明一个新对象的方式相同。
当涉及到对象的LINQ时，情况就更糟了，例如:-
var results = from item in someList
where item != 3
select item;
这并不比等价的foreach(var item in someList){//…}相当于。
这里有一个关于类型安全的真正问题——例如，如果我们将该查询的结果放在一个接受IEnumerable<int>和IEnumerable<double>的重载方法中，调用者可能会无意中传入错误的类型。
Var确实保持强类型，但问题是，在定义中不立即显示类型是否危险，当重载意味着当你无意中将错误的类型传递给方法时，编译器可能不会发出错误，这种情况会被放大。
在IEnumerable<int>和IEnumerable<double>之间的比较中，你不需要担心-如果你传递了错误的类型，你的代码无论如何都不会编译。
不需要考虑类型安全，因为var不是动态的。这只是编译器的魔法，任何类型不安全的调用都会被捕获。
Linq绝对需要Var:
var anonEnumeration =
from post in AllPosts()
where post.Date > oldDate
let author = GetAuthor( post.AuthorId )
select new {
PostName = post.Name,
post.Date,
AuthorName = author.Name
};
现在看看智能感知中的anonEnumeration，它会显示类似IEnumerable<'a>
foreach( var item in anonEnumeration )
{
//VS knows the type
item.PostName; //you'll get intellisense here
//you still have type safety
item.ItemId; //will throw a compiler exception
}
c#编译器非常聪明——单独生成的anon类型如果它们的属性匹配，将具有相同的生成类型。
除此之外，只要你有智能感知，在上下文清楚的地方使用var是有意义的。
//less typing, this is good
var myList = new List<UnreasonablyLongClassName>();
//also good - I can't be mistaken on type
var anotherList = GetAllOfSomeItem();
//but not here - probably best to leave single value types declared
var decimalNum = 123.456m;
我们采用了“为人编写代码，而不是为机器编写代码”的理念，基于这样的假设:在维护模式中花费的时间要比在新的开发模式中花费的时间长好几倍。
对我来说，这就排除了编译器“知道”变量是什么类型的说法——当然，你不可能第一次就写出无效的代码，因为编译器会阻止你的代码编译，但是当下一个开发人员在6个月的时间里阅读代码时，他们需要能够推断出变量做得正确或不正确的地方，并快速确定问题的原因。
因此,
var something = SomeMethod();
在我们的编码标准中是不合法的，但在我们的团队中鼓励这样做，因为它增加了可读性:
var list = new List<KeyValuePair<string, double>>();
FillList( list );
foreach( var item in list ) {
DoWork( item );
}
我广泛使用var。有人批评这降低了代码的可读性，但没有证据支持这种说法。
Admittedly, it may mean that it's not clear what type we are dealing with. So what? This is actually the point of a decoupled design. When dealing with interfaces, you are emphatically not interested in the type a variable has. var takes this much further, true, but I think that the argument remains the same from a readability point of view: The programmer shouldn't actually be interested in the type of the variable but rather in what a variable does. This is why Microsoft also calls type inference “duck typing.”
当我用var声明变量时，它会做什么呢?简单，智能感知让它做什么它就做什么。任何关于c#的推理都忽略了IDE，这是不现实的。实际上，每个c#代码都是在支持智能感知的IDE中编写的。
如果我使用了一个var声明的变量，并对变量的用途感到困惑，那么我的代码就有根本性的问题。Var不是原因，它只是使症状可见。不要责怪送信的人。
现在，c#团队发布了一个编码指南，声明var应该只用于捕获创建匿名类型的LINQ语句的结果(因为在这里，我们没有真正的替代var的方法)。去他的。只要c#团队没有给我一个合理的论证，我就会忽略它，因为在我的专业和个人观点中，这纯粹是胡扯。(抱歉;我找不到相关指南的链接。)
Actually, there are some (superficially) good explanations on why you shouldn't use var but I still believe they are largely wrong. Take the example of “searchabililty”: the author claims that var makes it hard to search for places where MyType is used. Right. So do interfaces. Actually, why would I want to know where the class is used? I might be more interested in where it is instantiated and this will still be searchable because somewhere its constructor has to be invoked (even if this is done indirectly, the type name has to be mentioned somewhere).
将它用于匿名类型—这就是它存在的目的。其他的都是徒劳无功。像许多使用C长大的人一样，我习惯于查看类型声明的左侧。除非迫不得已，我是不会看右边的。在任何旧的声明中使用var都让我一直这样做，我个人觉得不舒服。
Those saying 'it doesn't matter, use what you're happy with' are not seeing the whole picture. Everyone will pick up other people's code at one point or another and have to deal with whatever decisions they made at the time they wrote it. It's bad enough having to deal with radically different naming conventions, or - the classic gripe - bracing styles, without adding the whole 'var or not' thing into the mix. The worst case will be where one programmer didn't use var and then along comes a maintainer who loves it, and extends the code using it. So now you have an unholy mess.
标准是一件好事，因为它们意味着你更有可能捡起随机代码，并能够快速地理解它。不同的东西越多，就越难。而转移到“无处不在的var”风格会有很大的不同。
I don't mind dynamic typing, and I don't mind implict typing - in languages that are designed for them. I quite like Python. But C# was designed as a statically explicitly-typed language and that's how it should stay. Breaking the rules for anonymous types was bad enough; letting people take that still further and break the idioms of the language even more is something I'm not happy with. Now that the genie is out of the bottle, it'll never go back in. C# will become balkanised into camps. Not good.
