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。
您可以让编译器(以及接下来维护代码的人员)从初始化式赋值的右边推断类型。如果这种推断是可能的，编译器可以这样做，从而节省了您的一些输入。
如果这个推断对那个可怜的家伙来说很容易，那么你没有伤害到任何东西。如果推断很难，那么作为一般规则，您已经使代码更难维护
我不会这么做的。
Lastly, if you intended the type to be something particular, and your initializer expression actually has a different type, using var means it will be harder for you to find the induced bug. By explicitly telling the compiler what you intend the type to be, when the type isn't that, you would get an immediate diagnostic. By sluffing on the type declaration and using "var", you won't get an error on the initialization; instead, you'll get a type error in some expression that uses the identifier assigned by the var expression, and it will be harder to understand why.
寓意是，要谨慎使用var;您通常不会给您自己或您的下游维护人员带来很多好处。并希望他的理由是一样的，这样你就不会因为他认为使用var很容易而猜测他的意图。在编写一个具有较长生命周期的系统时，优化输入量是一个错误。
从关于这一主题的讨论来看，结果似乎是:
Good: var customers = new List<Customer>();
争议性:var customers = dataAccess.GetCustomers();
忽略“var”神奇地帮助重构的错误观点，对我来说最大的问题是人们坚持认为他们不关心返回类型是什么，“只要他们能枚举集合”。
考虑:
IList<Customer> customers = dataAccess.GetCustomers();
var dummyCustomer = new Customer();
customers.Add(dummyCustomer);
现在考虑:
var customers = dataAccess.GetCustomers();
var dummyCustomer = new Customer();
customers.Add(dummyCustomer);
现在，重构数据访问类，使GetCustomers返回IEnumerable<Customer>，看看会发生什么……
这里的问题是，在第一个示例中，您明确了对GetCustomers方法的期望—您说您希望它返回一些行为类似于列表的东西。在第二个示例中，这个期望是隐式的，从代码中不能立即看出。
(对我来说)有趣的是，许多支持var的论点说“我不在乎它返回什么类型”，但接着说“我只需要迭代它……”。(因此它需要实现IEnumerable接口，这意味着类型很重要)。
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.
