Just for fun - what's the output of this?
-
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.
-
Ok, I rethought. The ctor fails, and that is bad. How about
Afternoon Exception
Afternoon Exception?
Good man! And we have a winner. Yep, the type initialiser fails both times - in short an exception in a static constructor is very bad news. Well done. :)
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.
musefan wrote:
i think not
Really, what is wrong with you people? I think so as described below.
Regards, Rob Philpott.
-
Hmmm I am not sure of this.... Anyway, my apologies if I offended you.
Not offended at all Sir. :)
Regards, Rob Philpott.
-
Ok, I rethought. The ctor fails, and that is bad. How about
Afternoon Exception
Afternoon Exception?
-
Good man! And we have a winner. Yep, the type initialiser fails both times - in short an exception in a static constructor is very bad news. Well done. :)
Regards, Rob Philpott.
I ran your code for the fun of it, and although the exception message is output twice, the type initializer only fails once, as far as the debugger can tell.