Revisions to Why can't I define a default constructor for a struct in .NET?

replaced http://stackoverflow.com/ with https://stackoverflow.com/

Source Link

edited May 23, 2017 at 12:34

URL Rewriter Bot

In .NET, a value type (C# struct) can't have a constructor with no parameters. According to this post this post this is mandated by the CLI specification. What happens is that for every value-type a default constructor is created (by the compiler?) which initialized all members to zero (or null).

Why is it disallowed to define such a default constructor?

One trivial use is for rational numbers:

public struct Rational {
    private long numerator;
    private long denominator;

    public Rational(long num, long denom)
    { /* Todo: Find GCD etc. */ }

    public Rational(long num)
    {
        numerator = num;
        denominator = 1;
    }

    public Rational() // This is not allowed
    {
        numerator = 0;
        denominator = 1;
    }
}

Using current version of C#, a default Rational is 0/0 which is not so cool.

PS: Will default parameters help solve this for C# 4.0 or will the CLR-defined default constructor be called?

Jon Skeet Jon Skeet answered:

To use your example, what would you want to happen when someone did:

 Rational[] fractions = new Rational[1000];

Should it run through your constructor 1000 times?

Sure it should, that's why I wrote the default constructor in the first place. The CLR should use the default zeroing constructor when no explicit default constructor is defined; that way you only pay for what you use. Then if I want a container of 1000 non-default Rationals (and want to optimize away the 1000 constructions) I will use a List<Rational> rather than an array.

This reason, in my mind, is not strong enough to prevent definition of a default constructor.

In .NET, a value type (C# struct) can't have a constructor with no parameters. According to this post this is mandated by the CLI specification. What happens is that for every value-type a default constructor is created (by the compiler?) which initialized all members to zero (or null).

Why is it disallowed to define such a default constructor?

One trivial use is for rational numbers:

public struct Rational {
    private long numerator;
    private long denominator;

    public Rational(long num, long denom)
    { /* Todo: Find GCD etc. */ }

    public Rational(long num)
    {
        numerator = num;
        denominator = 1;
    }

    public Rational() // This is not allowed
    {
        numerator = 0;
        denominator = 1;
    }
}

Using current version of C#, a default Rational is 0/0 which is not so cool.

PS: Will default parameters help solve this for C# 4.0 or will the CLR-defined default constructor be called?

Jon Skeet answered:

To use your example, what would you want to happen when someone did:

 Rational[] fractions = new Rational[1000];

Should it run through your constructor 1000 times?

Sure it should, that's why I wrote the default constructor in the first place. The CLR should use the default zeroing constructor when no explicit default constructor is defined; that way you only pay for what you use. Then if I want a container of 1000 non-default Rationals (and want to optimize away the 1000 constructions) I will use a List<Rational> rather than an array.

This reason, in my mind, is not strong enough to prevent definition of a default constructor.

In .NET, a value type (C# struct) can't have a constructor with no parameters. According to this post this is mandated by the CLI specification. What happens is that for every value-type a default constructor is created (by the compiler?) which initialized all members to zero (or null).

Why is it disallowed to define such a default constructor?

One trivial use is for rational numbers:

public struct Rational {
    private long numerator;
    private long denominator;

    public Rational(long num, long denom)
    { /* Todo: Find GCD etc. */ }

    public Rational(long num)
    {
        numerator = num;
        denominator = 1;
    }

    public Rational() // This is not allowed
    {
        numerator = 0;
        denominator = 1;
    }
}

Using current version of C#, a default Rational is 0/0 which is not so cool.

PS: Will default parameters help solve this for C# 4.0 or will the CLR-defined default constructor be called?

Jon Skeet answered:

To use your example, what would you want to happen when someone did:

 Rational[] fractions = new Rational[1000];

Should it run through your constructor 1000 times?

Sure it should, that's why I wrote the default constructor in the first place. The CLR should use the default zeroing constructor when no explicit default constructor is defined; that way you only pay for what you use. Then if I want a container of 1000 non-default Rationals (and want to optimize away the 1000 constructions) I will use a List<Rational> rather than an array.

This reason, in my mind, is not strong enough to prevent definition of a default constructor.

fix typo

Source Link

edited Mar 19, 2017 at 13:59

Motti

115.4k
56
195
277

In .NET, a value type (C# struct) can't have a constructor with no parameters. According to this post this is mandated by the CLI specification. What happeshappens is that for every value-type a default constructor is created (by the compiler?) which initialized all members to zero (or null).

Why is it disallowed to define such a default constructor?

One trivial use is for rational numbers:

public struct Rational {
    private long numerator;
    private long denominator;

    public Rational(long num, long denom)
    { /* Todo: Find GCD etc. */ }

    public Rational(long num)
    {
        numerator = num;
        denominator = 1;
    }

    public Rational() // This is not allowed
    {
        numerator = 0;
        denominator = 1;
    }
}

Using current version of C#, a default Rational is 0/0 which is not so cool.

PS: Will default parameters help solve this for C# 4.0 or will the CLR-defined default constructor be called?

Jon Skeet answered:

To use your example, what would you want to happen when someone did:

 Rational[] fractions = new Rational[1000];

Should it run through your constructor 1000 times?

Sure it should, that's why I wrote the default constructor in the first place. The CLR should use the default zeroing constructor when no explicit default constructor is defined; that way you only pay for what you use. Then if I want a container of 1000 non-default Rationals (and want to optimize away the 1000 constructions) I will use a List<Rational> rather than an array.

This reason, in my mind, is not strong enough to prevent definition of a default constructor.

In .NET, a value type (C# struct) can't have a constructor with no parameters. According to this post this is mandated by the CLI specification. What happes is that for every value-type a default constructor is created (by the compiler?) which initialized all members to zero (or null).

Why is it disallowed to define such a default constructor?

One trivial use is for rational numbers:

public struct Rational {
    private long numerator;
    private long denominator;

    public Rational(long num, long denom)
    { /* Todo: Find GCD etc. */ }

    public Rational(long num)
    {
        numerator = num;
        denominator = 1;
    }

    public Rational() // This is not allowed
    {
        numerator = 0;
        denominator = 1;
    }
}

Using current version of C#, a default Rational is 0/0 which is not so cool.

PS: Will default parameters help solve this for C# 4.0 or will the CLR-defined default constructor be called?

Jon Skeet answered:

To use your example, what would you want to happen when someone did:

 Rational[] fractions = new Rational[1000];

Should it run through your constructor 1000 times?

Sure it should, that's why I wrote the default constructor in the first place. The CLR should use the default zeroing constructor when no explicit default constructor is defined; that way you only pay for what you use. Then if I want a container of 1000 non-default Rationals (and want to optimize away the 1000 constructions) I will use a List<Rational> rather than an array.

This reason, in my mind, is not strong enough to prevent definition of a default constructor.

In .NET, a value type (C# struct) can't have a constructor with no parameters. According to this post this is mandated by the CLI specification. What happens is that for every value-type a default constructor is created (by the compiler?) which initialized all members to zero (or null).

Why is it disallowed to define such a default constructor?

One trivial use is for rational numbers:

public struct Rational {
    private long numerator;
    private long denominator;

    public Rational(long num, long denom)
    { /* Todo: Find GCD etc. */ }

    public Rational(long num)
    {
        numerator = num;
        denominator = 1;
    }

    public Rational() // This is not allowed
    {
        numerator = 0;
        denominator = 1;
    }
}

Using current version of C#, a default Rational is 0/0 which is not so cool.

PS: Will default parameters help solve this for C# 4.0 or will the CLR-defined default constructor be called?

Jon Skeet answered:

To use your example, what would you want to happen when someone did:

 Rational[] fractions = new Rational[1000];

Should it run through your constructor 1000 times?

Sure it should, that's why I wrote the default constructor in the first place. The CLR should use the default zeroing constructor when no explicit default constructor is defined; that way you only pay for what you use. Then if I want a container of 1000 non-default Rationals (and want to optimize away the 1000 constructions) I will use a List<Rational> rather than an array.

This reason, in my mind, is not strong enough to prevent definition of a default constructor.

Copy edited. Removed historical information (e.g. ref. <http://meta.stackexchange.com/a/230693> and <http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/266164>).

Source Link

edited Oct 22, 2015 at 7:02

Peter Mortensen

31.5k
22
110
134

In .NET, a value type (C# struct) can't have a constructor with no parameters. According to this post this is mandated by the CLI specspecification. What happes is that for every value-type a default constructor is created (by the compiler?) which initialized all members to zero (or null).

Does anyone know why itWhy is it disallowed to define such a default constructor?

One trivial use is for rational numbers:

public struct Rational {
    private long numerator;
    private long denominator;

    public Rational(long num, long denom)
    { /* Todo: Find GCD etc. */ }

    public Rational(long num)
    {
        numerator = num;
        denominator = 1;
    }

    public Rational() // This is not allowed
    {
        numerator = 0;
        denominator = 1;
    }
}

Using current version of C#, a default Rational is 0/0 which is not so cool.

P.S.PS: Will default parameters help solve this for C#4C# 4.0 or will the CLR defined-defined default constructor be called?

Edit: Jon Skeet answered:

To use your example, what would you want to happen when someone did:

 Rational[] fractions = new Rational[1000];

Should it run through your constructor 1000 times?

Sure it should, that's why I wrote the default constructor in the first place, the. The CLR should use the default zeroing constructor when no explicit default ctorconstructor is defined,defined; that way you only pay for what you use. Then if I want a container of 1000 non default-default Rationals (and want to optimize away the 1000 constructions) I will use a List<Rational> rather than an array.

This reason, in my mind, is not strong enough to prevent definition of a default constructor.

In .NET a value type (C# struct) can't have a constructor with no parameters. According to this post this is mandated by the CLI spec. What happes is that for every value-type a default constructor is created (by the compiler?) which initialized all members to zero (or null).

Does anyone know why it is disallowed to define such a default constructor?

One trivial use is for rational numbers

public struct Rational {
    private long numerator;
    private long denominator;

    public Rational(long num, long denom)
    { /* Todo: Find GCD etc. */ }

    public Rational(long num)
    {
        numerator = num;
        denominator = 1;
    }

    public Rational() // This is not allowed
    {
        numerator = 0;
        denominator = 1;
    }
}

Using current C# a default Rational is 0/0 which is not so cool.

P.S. Will default parameters help solve this for C#4.0 or will the CLR defined default constructor be called?

Edit: Jon Skeet answered:

To use your example, what would you want to happen when someone did:

 Rational[] fractions = new Rational[1000];

Should it run through your constructor 1000 times?

Sure it should, that's why I wrote the default constructor in the first place, the CLR should use the default zeroing constructor when no explicit default ctor is defined, that way you only pay for what you use. Then if I want a container of 1000 non default Rationals (and want to optimize away the 1000 constructions) I will use a List<Rational> rather than an array.

This reason, in my mind, is not strong enough to prevent definition of a default constructor.

In .NET, a value type (C# struct) can't have a constructor with no parameters. According to this post this is mandated by the CLI specification. What happes is that for every value-type a default constructor is created (by the compiler?) which initialized all members to zero (or null).

Why is it disallowed to define such a default constructor?

One trivial use is for rational numbers:

public struct Rational {
    private long numerator;
    private long denominator;

    public Rational(long num, long denom)
    { /* Todo: Find GCD etc. */ }

    public Rational(long num)
    {
        numerator = num;
        denominator = 1;
    }

    public Rational() // This is not allowed
    {
        numerator = 0;
        denominator = 1;
    }
}

Using current version of C#, a default Rational is 0/0 which is not so cool.

PS: Will default parameters help solve this for C# 4.0 or will the CLR-defined default constructor be called?

Jon Skeet answered:

To use your example, what would you want to happen when someone did:

 Rational[] fractions = new Rational[1000];

Should it run through your constructor 1000 times?

Sure it should, that's why I wrote the default constructor in the first place. The CLR should use the default zeroing constructor when no explicit default constructor is defined; that way you only pay for what you use. Then if I want a container of 1000 non-default Rationals (and want to optimize away the 1000 constructions) I will use a List<Rational> rather than an array.

This reason, in my mind, is not strong enough to prevent definition of a default constructor.