Develop Reference

modify a value-type variable in a using statement

In C#, if I have the following struct:
internal struct myStruct : IDisposable
{
public int x;
public void Dispose()
{
x = 0;
}
}
then do this in Main:
using (myStruct myStruct = new myStruct())
{
myStruct.x = 5;
}
it fails saying that myStruct is readonly. That makes sense as myStruct is a value-type.
Now if I add the folling function to the struct:
public void myfunc(int x)
{
this.x = x;
}
and change the Main code to this:
using (myStruct myStruct = new myStruct())
{
myStruct.myfunc(5);
Console.WriteLine(myStruct.x);
}
it works. Why ?

The short answer is "because the C# specification says so". Which, I admit, may be a bit unsatisfying. But that's how it is.
The motivation is, I'm sure, as commenter Blogbeard suggests: while it's practical to enforce read-only on the field access, it's not practical to do so from within a type. After all, the type itself has no way to know how a variable containing a value of that type was declared.
The key part of the C# specification (from the v5.0 spec) is here, on page 258 (in the section on the using statement):
Local variables declared in a resource-acquisition are read-only, and must include an initializer. A compile-time error occurs if the embedded statement attempts to modify these local variables (via assignment or the ++ and operators), take the address of them, or pass them as ref or out parameters.
Since in the case of a value type, the variable itself contains the value of the object rather than a reference to an object, modifying any field of the object via that variable is the same as modifying the variable, and is so a "modification via assignment", which is specifically prohibited by the specification.
This is exactly the same as if you had declared the value type variable as a field in another object, with the readonly modifier.
But note that this is a compile-time rule, enforced by the C# compiler, and that there's no way for the compiler to similarly enforce the rule for a value type that modifies itself.
I will point out that this is one of many excellent reasons that one should never ever implement a mutable value type. Mutable value types frequently wind up being able to be modified when you don't want them to be, while at the same time find themselves failing to be modified when you do want them to be (in completely different scenarios from this one).
If you treat a value type as something that is truly a value, i.e. a single value that is itself never changing, they work much better and find themselves in the middle of many fewer bugs. :)

Impure method is called for readonly field

I'm using Visual Studio 2010 + ReSharper and it shows a warning on the following code:
if (rect.Contains(point))
{
...
}
rect is a readonly Rectangle field, and ReSharper shows me this warning:
"Impure Method is called for readonly field of value type."
What are impure methods and why is this warning being shown to me?

First off, Jon, Michael and Jared's answers are essentially correct but I have a few more things I'd like to add to them.
What is meant by an "impure" method?
It is easier to characterize pure methods. A "pure" method has the following characteristics:
Its output is entirely determined by its input; its output does not depend on externalities like the time of day or the bits on your hard disk. Its output does not depend on its history; calling the method with a given argument twice should give the same result.
A pure method produces no observable mutations in the world around it. A pure method may choose to mutate private state for efficiency's sake, but a pure method does not, say, mutate a field of its argument.
For example, Math.Cos is a pure method. Its output depends only on its input, and the input is not changed by the call.
An impure method is a method which is not pure.
What are some of the dangers of passing readonly structs to impure methods?
There are two that come to mind. The first is the one pointed out by Jon, Michael and Jared, and this is the one that ReSharper is warning you about. When you call a method on a struct, we always pass a reference to the variable that is the receiver, in case the method wishes to mutate the variable.
So what if you call such a method on a value, rather than a variable? In that case, we make a temporary variable, copy the value into it, and pass a reference to the variable.
A readonly variable is considered a value, because it cannot be mutated outside the constructor. So we are copying the variable to another variable, and the impure method is possibly mutating the copy, when you intend it to mutate the variable.
That's the danger of passing a readonly struct as a receiver. There is also a danger of passing a struct that contains a readonly field. A struct that contains a readonly field is a common practice, but it is essentially writing a cheque that the type system does not have the funds to cash; the "read-only-ness" of a particular variable is determined by the owner of the storage. An instance of a reference type "owns" its own storage, but an instance of a value type does not!
struct S
{
private readonly int x;
public S(int x) { this.x = x; }
public void Badness(ref S s)
{
Console.WriteLine(this.x);
s = new S(this.x + 1);
// This should be the same, right?
Console.WriteLine(this.x);
}
}
One thinks that this.x is not going to change because x is a readonly field and Badness is not a constructor. But...
S s = new S(1);
s.Badness(ref s);
... clearly demonstrates the falsity of that. this and s refer to the same variable, and that variable is not readonly!

An impure method is one which isn't guaranteed to leave the value as it was.
In .NET 4, you can decorate methods and types with [Pure] to declare them to be pure, and R# will take notice of this. Unfortunately, you can't apply it to someone else's members, and you can't convince R# that a type/member is pure in a .NET 3.5 project as far as I'm aware. (This bites me in Noda Time all the time.)
The idea is that if you're calling a method which mutates a variable, but you call it on a read-only field, it's probably not doing what you want, so R# will warn you about this. For example:
public struct Nasty
{
public int value;
public void SetValue()
{
value = 10;
}
}
class Test
{
static readonly Nasty first;
static Nasty second;
static void Main()
{
first.SetValue();
second.SetValue();
Console.WriteLine(first.value); // 0
Console.WriteLine(second.value); // 10
}
}
This would be a really useful warning if every method which was actually pure was declared that way. Unfortunately they're not, so there are a lot of false positives :(

The short answer is that this is a false positive, and you can safely ignore the warning.
The longer answer is that accessing a read-only value type creates a copy of it, so that any changes to the value made by a method would only affect the copy. ReSharper doesn't realize that Contains is a pure method (meaning it has no side effects). Eric Lippert talks about it here: Mutating Readonly Structs

It sounds like ReSharper believes that the method Contains can mutate the rect value. Because rect is a readonly struct, the C# compiler makes defensive copies of the value to prevent the method from mutating a readonly field. Essentially, the final code looks like this:
Rectangle temp = rect;
if (temp.Contains(point)) {
...
}
ReSharper is warning you here that Contains may mutate rect in a way that would be immediately lost because it happened on a temporary.

An Impure method is a method that could have side-effects. In this case, ReSharper seems to think it could change rect. It probably doesn't but the chain of evidence is broken.

Static readonly vs const — different assemblies POV?

There are many questions about this subject , but none (except one but still a short one) are dealing with the following scenario.
From C# 4 book:
Marc also wrote :
if you change the value of a const, you need to rebuild all the
clients
Question :
1) Why is that? Are both static readonly and const— static?
2) Where actually the values are saved ?
3) How does making a field static readonly actually solve this problem "behind the scene" ?

no, a const is a const, not a static - it is a special-case, with different rules; it is only set at compile-time (not runtime), and it is handled differently
the crux here is what the following means:
var foo = SomeType.StaticValue;
vs
var bar = SomeType.ConstValue;
in the first case, it reads the value at runtime from SomeType, i.e. via a ldsfld; however, in the second case, that is compiled to the value, i.e. if ConstValue happens to be 123, then the second is identical to:
var bar = 123;
at runtime, the fact that it came from SomeType does not exist, as the value (123) was evaluated by the compiler, and stored. Hence it needs a rebuild to pick up new values.
Changing to static readonly means that the "load the value from SomeType" is preserved.
So the following:
static int Foo()
{
return Test.Foo;
}
static int Bar()
{
return Test.Bar;
}
...
static class Test
{
public static readonly int Foo = 123;
public const int Bar = 456;
}
compiles as:
.method private hidebysig static int32 Bar() cil managed
{
.maxstack 8
L_0000: ldc.i4 0x1c8
L_0005: ret
}
.method private hidebysig static int32 Foo() cil managed
{
.maxstack 8
L_0000: ldsfld int32 ConsoleApplication2.Test::Foo
L_0005: ret
}
Note that in the Bar, the ldc is loading a value directly (0x1c8 == 456), with Test completely gone.
For completeness, the const is implemented with a static field, but - it is a literal field, meaning: evaluated at the compiler, not at runtime.
.field public static literal int32 Bar = int32(0x1c8)
.field public static initonly int32 Foo

if you change the value of a const, you need to rebuild all the clients
That is not the correct solution. If you change the value of a const then it was not a constant. Constants are by definition things that never change their value. The idea that you would change the value of a constant means that you are doing something logically impossible, and so of course things will break; you're doing something that you said you would not do. If you go around lying to the compiler, and it hurts when you do that, then stop lying to the compiler.
The price of gold is not a constant. The name of your bank is not a constant. The version number of your program is not a constant. These things change, so do not make them constants. Constants are things like pi, or the number of protons in an atom of gold.
Variables are things that can vary -- that's why they're called "variables". Constants are things that stay... constant. If it can vary, make it a variable. If it is constant, make it a constant. It is as simple as that.
why is that? both static readonly and const are static
Sure. What does that have to do with it? "static" in C# means "the named element is associated with the type, rather than with any particular instance of the type." ("Static" is therefore a poor choice of terms; VB does it better with "shared".)
Whether the name is associated with the type or an instance is irrelevant to the question of whether the name refers to a constant or variable.
where actually the values is being saved in both static readonly vsconst ?
When you use a constant value, the value is "baked in" wherever it is used. That's safe because it is never going to change. It's never going to change because it is constant, and that's what "constant" means.
When you use a variable, the variable's value is looked up at runtime every time. "readonly" just means "this variable can only be changed in the class constructor or field initializer". It is still a variable. (*)
how making a field static readonly - actually solve this problem behind the scene ?
You haven't stated what the problem is, so I don't know what problem you're trying to solve.
(*) Readonly fields are considered to be non-constant values outside the constructor, so that a readonly field of mutable value type cannot be mutated, and so that you cannot take a ref to a readonly field and then mutate the reference.

1) const is just resolved during compile time with the value that you have provided. While static readonly is a static variable.
2) static values are usually stored on a special area on the heap called High Frequency Heap. As I said previously consts are substituted at compile time.
3) making it static readonly will solve the problem because you will be reading a variable value at runtime, not a value provided at compile time.

You have already answered your question with the image you linked to. const fields will be compiled ("inlined") into the assembly - like a simple search and replace. static readonly means a normal field that is not allowed to change and exists only once in memory, but is still referenced by memory location.
In the .NET Framework, constants are not assigned a memory region, but
are instead considered values. Therefore, you can never assign a
constant, but loading the constant into memory is more efficient
because it can injected directly into the instruction stream. This
eliminates any memory accesses outside of the memory, improving
locality of reference. http://www.dotnetperls.com/optimization

I guess we can think of a constant as a hardcoded value in our code, but with better maintenance and usability offerings.

const, readonly and mutable value types

I'm continuing my study of C# and the language specification and Here goes another behavior that I don't quite understand:
The C# Language Specification clearly states the following in section 10.4:
The type specified in a constant declaration must be sbyte, byte, short, ushort, int, uint, long, ulong, char, float, double, decimal, bool, string, an enum-type, or a reference-type.
It also states in section 4.1.4 the following:
Through const declarations it is possible to declare constants of the simple types (§10.4). It is not possible to have constants of other struct types, but a similar effect is provided by static readonly fields.
Ok, so a similar effect can be gained by using static readonly. Reading this I went and tried the following code:
static void Main()
{
OffsetPoints();
Console.Write("Hit a key to exit...");
Console.ReadKey();
}
static Point staticPoint = new Point(0, 0);
static readonly Point staticReadOnlyPoint = new Point(0, 0);
public static void OffsetPoints()
{
PrintOutPoints();
staticPoint.Offset(1, 1);
staticReadOnlyPoint.Offset(1, 1);
Console.WriteLine("Offsetting...");
Console.WriteLine();
PrintOutPoints();
}
static void PrintOutPoints()
{
Console.WriteLine("Static Point: X={0};Y={1}", staticPoint.X, staticPoint.Y);
Console.WriteLine("Static readonly Point: X={0};Y={1}", staticReadOnlyPoint.X, staticReadOnlyPoint.Y);
Console.WriteLine();
}
The output of this code is:
Static Point: X=0;Y=0
Static readonly Point: X=0;Y=0
Offsetting...
Static Point: X=1;Y=1
Static readonly Point: X=0;Y=0
Hit a key to exit...
I really expected the compiler to give me some kind of warning about mutating a static readonly field or failing that, to mutate the field as it would with a reference type.
I know mutable value types are evil (why did Microsoft ever implement Point as mutable is a mystery) but shouldn't the compiler warn you in some way that you are trying to mutate a static readonly value type? Or at least warn you that your Offset() method will not have the "desired" side effects?

Eric Lippert explains what's going on here:
...if the field is readonly and the reference occurs outside an
instance constructor of the class in which the field is declared, then
the result is a value, namely the value of the field I in the object
referenced by E.
The important word here is that the result is the value of the field,
not the variable associated with the field. Readonly fields are not
variables outside of the constructor. (The initializer here is
considered to be inside the constructor; see my earlier post on that
subject.)
Oh and just to stress on the evilness of mutable structs, here is his conclusion:
This is yet another reason why mutable value types are evil. Try to
always make value types immutable.

The point of the readonly is that you cannot reassign the reference or value.
In other words if you attempted this
staticReadOnlyPoint = new Point(1, 1);
you would get a compiler error because you are attempting to reassign staticReadOnlyPoint. The compiler will prevent you from doing this.
However, readonly doesn't enforce whether the value or referenced object itself is mutable - that is a behaviour that is designed into the class or struct by the person creating it.
[EDIT: to properly address the odd behaviour being described]
The reason you see the behaviour where staticReadOnlyPoint appears to be immutable is not because it is immutable itself, but because it is a readonly struct. This means that every time you access it, you are taking a full copy of it.
So your line
staticReadOnlyPoint.Offset(1, 1);
is accessing, and mutating, a copy of the field, not the actual value in the field. When you subsequently write out the value you are then writing out yet another copy of the original (not the mutated copy).
The copy you did mutate with the call to Offset is discarded, because it is never assigned to anything.

The compiler simply doesn't have enough information available about a method to know that the method mutates the struct. A method may well have a side-effect that's useful but doesn't otherwise change any members of the struct. If would technically be possible to add such analysis to the compiler. But that won't work for any types that live in another assembly.
The missing ingredient is a metadata token that indicates that a method doesn't mutate any members. Like the const keyword in C++. Not available. It would have be drastically non-CLS compliant if it was added in the original design. There are very few languages that support the notion. I can only think of C++ but I don't get out much.
Fwiw, the compiler does generate explicit code to ensure that the statement cannot accidentally modify the readonly. This statement
staticReadOnlyPoint.Offset(1, 1);
gets translated to
Point temp = staticReadOnlyPoint; // makes a copy
temp.Offset(1, 1);
Adding code that then compares the value and generates a runtime error is also only technically possible. It costs too much.

The observed behavior is an unfortunate consequence of the fact that neither the Framework nor C# provides any means by which member function declarations can specify whether this should be passed by ref, const-ref, or value. Instead, value types always pass this by (non-const-restricted) ref, and reference types always pass this by value.
The 'proper' behavior for a compiler would be to forbid passing immutable or temporary values by non-const-restricted ref. If such restriction could be imposed, ensuring proper semantics for mutable value types would mean following a simple rule: if you make an implicit copy of a struct, you're doing something wrong. Unfortunately, the fact that member functions can only accept this by non-const-restricted ref means a language designer must make one of three choices:
Guess that a member function won't modify `this`, and simply pass immutable or temporary variables by `ref`. This would be most efficient for functions which do not, in fact, modify `this`, but could dangerously expose to modification things that should be immutable.
Don't allow member functions to be used on immutable or temporary entities. This would avoid improper semantics, but would be a really annoying restriction, especially given that most member functions do not modify `this`.
Allow the use of member functions except those deemed most likely to modify `this` (e.g. property setters), but instead of passing immutable entities directly by ref, copy them to temporary locations and pass those.
Microsoft's choice protects constants from improper modification, but has the unfortunate consequences that code will run needlessly slowly when calling functions that don't modify this, while generally working incorrectly for those which do.
Given the way this is actually handled, one's best bet is to avoid making any changes to it in structure member functions other than property setters. Having property setters or mutable fields is fine, since the compiler will correctly forbid any attempt to use property setters on immutable or temporary objects, or to modify any fields thereof.

If you look at the IL, you will see that on usage of the readonly field, a copy is made before calling Offset:
IL_0014: ldsfld valuetype [System.Drawing]System.Drawing.Point
Program::staticReadOnlyPoint
IL_0019: stloc.0
IL_001a: ldloca.s CS$0$0000
Why this is happening, is beyond me.
It could be part of the spec, or a compiler bug (but it looks a bit too intentional for the latter).

The effect is due to several well-defined features coming together.
readonly means that the field in question cannot be changed, but not that the target of the field cannot be changed. This is more easily understood (and more often useful in practice) with readonly fields of a mutable reference type, where you can do x.SomeMutatingMethod() but not x = someNewObject.
So, first item is; you can mutate the target of a readonly field.
Second item is, that when you access a non-variable value type you obtain a copy of the value. The least confusing example of this is giveMeAPoint().Offset(1, 1) because there isn't a known location for us to later observe that the value-type returned by giveMeAPoint() may or may not have been mutated.
This is why value types are not evil, but are in some ways worse. Truly evil code doesn't have a well-defined behaviour, and all of this is well-defined. It's still confusing though (confusing enough for me to get this wrong on my first answer), and confusing is worse than evil when you're trying to code. Easily understood evil is so much more easily avoided.

Why does C# not allow const and static on the same line?

Why does C# not allow const and static on the same line? In Java, you must declare a field as 'static' and 'final' to act as a constant. Why does C# not let you declare const's as final?
I make the further distinction that in Java, every interface is public and abstract, whether this is explicitly declared or not. Aren't const's effectively static in nature? WHy does C# balk at this?

const and static really do mean different things, different storage mechanism, different initialisation. static is read/write, therefore must have memory allocated for storage and must be initialised at runtime. A static can be initialised with a literal value or an expression. In contrast, a const is immutable and must be initialised with a compile time constant (typically a literal value, or an expression that can be fully evaluated at compile time). The value is known at compile time so it can be embedded directly in the generated code, therefore requires no storage to be allocated at runtime.

Constants by their nature are static, so that would be redundant.

As said before, static final in Java is the same as static readonly in C#. In fact, you are saying that this member is static and its content can't be changed. Also you can specify in both cases the value from static constructor.
But const in C# is completely different thing. It's more along the lines of constants in C (DEFINE directives) but with OOP in mind. It's static because it's constant - every instance would have this constant with the same value, no constructor can set it. Also it's possible that someone would like to access the constant without having to create an instance. When you think about it non-static constant just doesn't make sense. You can almost say that constants are not part of an object - they just use it to provide context, a strong name.
Java doesn't have an equivalent to const. You can read somewhere that static final is equivalent to DEFINE but that's just so vague. Completely different mechanism, nothing in common but in the end result in the code is the same - better maintainability and readability of the code.
You just have to stop thinking about constants in C# as static members because they are not. Think of them as OOP version of DEFINE. When you consider encapsulation only reason for final and readonly fields is to prevent your own code from accidently changing its value. And that doesn't sound like constant to me.
Sumary:
final = readonly
static final = static readonly
N/A = const

It is true that a C# const implies static BUT, C# has an equivalent to Java's final keyword in the keyword readonly.
So, in fact, C# allows a const final, it is static readonly in C#.

Because allowing and not requiring modifiers that are inherent can cause confusion. If you see
static const int A = 3
const int B = 5
you may believe that they are 2 different kinds of constants.
Even VB 2008 (which can be very verbose if you wish) doesn't allow that.