43
// OK
struct MyStruct
{
    static void Foo() { }
}

// Error
static struct MyStruct
{
}
gkrogers
  • 8,126
  • 3
  • 29
  • 36
sfedorov1982
  • 611
  • 1
  • 5
  • 7
  • Just the same for [delegates](http://stackoverflow.com/questions/6835766/why-can-a-net-delegate-not-be-declared-static) and [enums](http://stackoverflow.com/questions/4567868/troubles-declaring-static-enum-c-sharp) – nawfal Jan 02 '14 at 17:05
  • I answer this question in another question. I hope to help you. [This is the link](https://stackoverflow.com/a/59360219/6755993) –  Dec 16 '19 at 18:05

3 Answers3

43

Since you cannot create an instance of a static type, the behavior of static struct would be exactly the same as the behavior of static class. So, there is no reason for creating them. I think it would be theoretically possible to have a static struct but it would be confusing - how would you choose between static class and static struct if the behavior of the two was exactly the same?

Note that static methods inside a struct are quite useful as you can use them for operations related to the struct, for example DateTime.TryParse etc.

Technically speaking I don't think that the current C# compiler & runtime could produce something like a static struct, because internally (at the IL level) static class is a class that is marked as abstract and sealed. And I suppose that you cannot create a struct that would be abstract and sealed (in the IL).

gkrogers
  • 8,126
  • 3
  • 29
  • 36
Tomas Petricek
  • 240,744
  • 19
  • 378
  • 553
  • fixed arrays can only be contained in structs, it would be nice to have a static one of these – Markus Sep 04 '19 at 10:10
15

I think the key, really, is that a struct is a value type, not a reference type. That would be like saying "There's only one instance of int for my entire program. It can have different values, but only one at a time." Further, whenever you pass a struct as an argument, it gets passed by value, that is, a copy of the struct is made and placed on the stack. This defeats the purpose of a static definition -- which should mean that there is only (ever) one instance of the thing being defined. If what you are trying to create is really a Singleton, a class is a much better way to handle that given that it has much better creation semantics than a struct.

tvanfosson
  • 524,688
  • 99
  • 697
  • 795
10

The key point here is that the static modifier on a class enforces (among other things) that an instance of the class cannot be created. This is done by forcing a private constructor.

The CLR doesn't have any way to prevent an instance of a struct type from being created. Even if there is no public default constructor, simply declaring

struct S { }

S[] items = new S[]{1};

would create an instance of the struct with all of the associated memory set to zero bits.

Note that this is different from a reference type (class), where the same code would create a reference of the specified type (referencing no object aka null) but not an instance of the object itself.

alelom
  • 2,130
  • 3
  • 26
  • 38
yellowstar
  • 231
  • 2
  • 4