Why is string.Empty readonly?

Question

Possible Duplicate:
Why isn't String.Empty a constant?

...and not const?

I know its probably a useless question, but I'm sort of curious on the reasoning behind this one. An empty string is an empty string so I do not foresee many chances of string.Empty being anything else than "". So why make it readonly?

Is there any other benefit I'm missing in not making it const?

Values marked `static` are still open to being modified, no? The intent with `readonly` is clear: no modification possible. — Bernard, Aug 16 '11 at 18:48
Technically it isn't... http://thedailywtf.com/Comments/The-Disgruntled-Bomb.aspx?pg=2 Has a very nasty piece of code for disgruntled employees to leave lying around — RichK, Aug 16 '11 at 18:51
woops yeah sorry, I meant const. Anyhow sorry for the duplicate, I should have checked before. — InBetween, Aug 16 '11 at 18:52

score 3 · Answer 1 · answered Aug 16 '11 at 18:47

3

It IS static.

public static readonly string Empty;

answered Aug 16 '11 at 18:47

Tejs

40,736
10
68
86

so what? aren't const's static on the class too? Doesnt answer. – nawfal Feb 03 '13 at 19:57

score 0 · Answer 2 · answered Aug 16 '11 at 18:48

0

Readonly prevents it from being changed. Perhaps you mean "why isn't it a const"?

answered Aug 16 '11 at 18:48

Mark Sowul

10,244
1
45
51

Yes he meant it in the question. Doesn't answer – nawfal Feb 03 '13 at 19:58

Why is string.Empty readonly?

2 Answers2