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。


当前回答

取决于,它使代码看起来“更干净”,但同意它使它更难以读…

其他回答

这两种说法都不是绝对正确的;Var对可读性既有正面影响,也有负面影响。在我看来,var应该在以下情况之一成立时使用:

类型是匿名的(好吧,这里没有任何选择,因为在这种情况下它必须是var) 根据指定的表达式,类型是明显的(即var foo = new TypeWithAReallyLongNameTheresNoSenseRepeating())

Var没有性能影响,因为它是语法糖;一旦编译成IL,编译器就会推断出类型并定义它;没有什么动态的东西。

有时编译器也能比开发人员“更好”地推断出需要什么——至少开发人员不了解他所使用的api需要什么。

例如-当使用linq时:

示例1

Func<Person, bool> predicate = (i) => i.Id < 10;
IEnumerable<Person> result = table.Where(predicate);

示例2

var predicate = (Person i) => i.Id < 10;
var result = table.Where(predicate);

在上面的代码中-假设一个是使用Linq到Nhibernate或Linq到SQL,示例1将 返回Person对象的整个结果集,然后在客户端进行筛选。 然而,示例2将在服务器上执行查询(例如在Sql server上使用Sql),因为编译器足够聪明,可以计算出Where函数应该采用表达式>而不是Func。

示例1中的结果在返回IEnumerable时也不能在服务器上进一步查询,而在示例2中,编译器可以计算出结果是否应该是IQueryable而不是IEnumerable

来自c#团队的高级软件设计工程师Eric Lippert:

为什么引入var关键字?

There are two reasons, one which exists today, one which will crop up in 3.0. The first reason is that this code is incredibly ugly because of all the redundancy: Dictionary<string, List<int>> mylists = new Dictionary<string, List<int>>(); And that's a simple example – I've written worse. Any time you're forced to type exactly the same thing twice, that's a redundancy that we can remove. Much nicer to write var mylists = new Dictionary<string,List<int>>(); and let the compiler figure out what the type is based on the assignment. Second, C# 3.0 introduces anonymous types. Since anonymous types by definition have no names, you need to be able to infer the type of the variable from the initializing expression if its type is anonymous.

我特别强调。整篇文章,c# 3.0仍然是静态类型的,真的!,以及随后的系列相当不错。

这就是var的作用。其他用途可能就没这么好用了。任何与JScript、VBScript或动态类型的比较都是胡扯。再次注意,var是为了使某些其他特性在. net中工作而必需的。

来自Essential LINQ:

除非绝对必要,否则最好不要显式声明范围变量的类型。例如,下面的代码编译干净,但是编译器可以在没有正式声明的情况下推断出类型:

List<string> list = new List<string> { "LINQ", "query", "adventure" };
var query = from string word in list
      where word.Contains("r")
      orderby word ascending
      select word;

显式声明range变量的类型会强制对LINQ Cast操作符进行幕后调用。此调用可能会产生意想不到的结果,并可能会损害性能。如果您在LINQ查询中遇到性能问题,像这里所示的强制转换可能是开始寻找罪魁祸首的一个地方。(此规则的一个例外是当您使用非泛型Enumerable时,在这种情况下您应该使用强制转换。)

Var,在我看来,在c#中是一个很好的东西。任何这样类型的变量仍然是强类型的,但是它从赋值函数的右边得到它的类型。因为类型信息在右侧可用,在大多数情况下,也必须在左侧输入它是不必要的和过于冗长的。我认为这在不降低类型安全性的情况下显著提高了可读性。

From my perspective, using good naming conventions for variables and methods is more important from a readability perspective than explicit type information. If I need the type information, I can always hover over the variable (in VS) and get it. Generally, though, explicit type information shouldn't be necessary to the reader. For the developer, in VS you still get Intellisense, regardless of how the variable is declared. Having said all of that, there may still be cases where it does make sense to explicitly declare the type -- perhaps you have a method that returns a List<T>, but you want to treat it as an IEnumerable<T> in your method. To ensure that you are using the interface, declaring the variable of the interface type can make this explicit. Or, perhaps, you want to declare a variable without an initial value -- because it immediately gets a value based on some condition. In that case you need the type. If the type information is useful or necessary, go ahead and use it. I feel, though, that typically it isn't necessary and the code is easier to read without it in most cases.