Just for fun - what's the output of this?
-
Did you cheat?
Regards, Rob Philpott.
Nope. This is easy, the first time a static method gets invoked, the static constructor is invoked. Yours throws an exception. The second time, the static constructor is not invoked again, so your call succeeds.
-
Nope. This is easy, the first time a static method gets invoked, the static constructor is invoked. Yours throws an exception. The second time, the static constructor is not invoked again, so your call succeeds.
Le Centriste wrote:
Nope. This is easy
Why did you get it wrong then? :)
Regards, Rob Philpott.
-
erm... No. But well done for not cheating. :)
Regards, Rob Philpott.
So, both me and this guy give the correct answer. You greet him and you accuse me of cheating. You're a plain asshole.
-
Le Centriste wrote:
Nope. This is easy
Why did you get it wrong then? :)
Regards, Rob Philpott.
I got it wrong? Then, why did you accuse me of cheating?
-
So, both me and this guy give the correct answer. You greet him and you accuse me of cheating. You're a plain asshole.
You both got the answer wrong :) . He was only joking when he asked if you were cheating...
-
I got it wrong? Then, why did you accuse me of cheating?
Hes playing. But you did get the answer wrong.
-
Hes playing. But you did get the answer wrong.
Yes, I finally ran it. I am surprised that the static constructor is called twice. Probably because it is throwing an exception.
-
You both got the answer wrong :) . He was only joking when he asked if you were cheating...
He forgot the icon, so I took as a personal attack. ;P
-
Yes, I finally ran it. I am surprised that the static constructor is called twice. Probably because it is throwing an exception.
The static constructor is NOT being called twice.
-
So, both me and this guy give the correct answer. You greet him and you accuse me of cheating. You're a plain asshole.
That's a bit rude isn't it? Not sure I like you. And neither did I accuse you of cheating. Tut.
Regards, Rob Philpott.
-
...if your idea of fun is as warped as mine. No Visual Studio allowed.
static void Main(string\[\] args) { try { TestStatic.SaySomething("HI"); } catch (Exception error) { Console.WriteLine(error.InnerException.Message); } try { TestStatic.SaySomething("Hi 2"); } catch (Exception error) { Console.WriteLine(error.InnerException.Message); } Console.ReadLine(); } } public class TestStatic { static TestStatic() { throw new Exception("Afternoon Exception"); } public static void SaySomething(string message) { Console.WriteLine(message); } }Regards, Rob Philpott.
-
The static constructor is NOT being called twice.
yeah, you're right. So, when the static constructor first throws an exception, any attempt to use the static methods (or maybe instance methods) rethrows the exception. I never use static constructors, and such behavior does not make me want to them.
-
I didnt think you could compile with a static constructor? I assume i am wrong thou as others have tested? so in which case i would say output is.. HI Hi 2
Life goes very fast. Tomorrow, today is already yesterday.
Can't compile with a static constructor?! Not sure they'd be much use in the language if that were the case. Sorry, you're wrong too.
Regards, Rob Philpott.
-
...if your idea of fun is as warped as mine. No Visual Studio allowed.
static void Main(string\[\] args) { try { TestStatic.SaySomething("HI"); } catch (Exception error) { Console.WriteLine(error.InnerException.Message); } try { TestStatic.SaySomething("Hi 2"); } catch (Exception error) { Console.WriteLine(error.InnerException.Message); } Console.ReadLine(); } } public class TestStatic { static TestStatic() { throw new Exception("Afternoon Exception"); } public static void SaySomething(string message) { Console.WriteLine(message); } }Regards, Rob Philpott.
-
Ok, well, you have a static ctor which will throw an exception the first time the type is used, so it would be:
Afternoon Exception
Hi 2Correct?
Nope!
Regards, Rob Philpott.
-
That's a bit rude isn't it? Not sure I like you. And neither did I accuse you of cheating. Tut.
Regards, Rob Philpott.
Hmmm I am not sure of this.... Anyway, my apologies if I offended you.
-
Can't compile with a static constructor?! Not sure they'd be much use in the language if that were the case. Sorry, you're wrong too.
Regards, Rob Philpott.
hmmm... well as the TestStatic class is not static it can have a constructor, i just didnt know it could be static. but either way any static methods (i.e. SaySomething) can be called without the need to create an instance of your class, which you are not doing in your code. So both calls to the SaySomething method should be successful, can you explain why either would fail? i think not.
Life goes very fast. Tomorrow, today is already yesterday.
-
Nope!
Regards, Rob Philpott.
-
Can't compile with a static constructor?! Not sure they'd be much use in the language if that were the case. Sorry, you're wrong too.
Regards, Rob Philpott.
what about... Afternoon Exception HI Hi 2 edit: no, that wouldnt happen if an exception is thrown when the program runs then surely it would just crash with the unhandled exception in the static constructor, no?
Life goes very fast. Tomorrow, today is already yesterday.
-
hmmm... well as the TestStatic class is not static it can have a constructor, i just didnt know it could be static. but either way any static methods (i.e. SaySomething) can be called without the need to create an instance of your class, which you are not doing in your code. So both calls to the SaySomething method should be successful, can you explain why either would fail? i think not.
Life goes very fast. Tomorrow, today is already yesterday.
Any class can have a static constructor, but it is highly recommended to make sure they never throw exceptions.