The constant cannot be marked static
I am trying to declare a PI constant like this:
public static const double PI = Math.PI;
but why am I getting this error?
The constant 'Calendar.NewCalendar.PI' cannot be marked static
Solution 1:
const
implies static
(you don't need an instance to reference the const
value).
I want to also add this important point: When you link against (reference) an assembly with a public const
, that value is copied into your assembly. So if the const
value in the referenced assembly changes, your assembly will still have the originally compiled-in value.
If this behavior is not acceptable, then you should consider making the field a public static readonly
field.
Lib.dll, provided as binary:
public class Foo {
public const int HATS = 42;
public static readonly int GLOVES = 33;
}
App.exe, references Lib.dll:
Foo.HATS // This will always be 42 even if the value in Lib.dll changes,
// unless App.exe is recompiled.
Foo.GLOVES // This will always be the same as Foo.GLOVES in Lib.dll
From MSDN:
Don’t create a constant to represent information that you expect to change at any time. For example, don’t use a constant field to store the price of a service, a product version number, or the brand name of a company. These values can change over time, and because compilers propagate constants, other code compiled with your libraries will have to be recompiled to see the changes.
From DotNetPerls:
DLLs. When you use a
const
field or declaration, the C# compiler actually embeds theconst
variable's value directly in the IL code. Therefore, it essentially erases theconst
as a separate entity.Caution: If programs that depend on a
const
are not recompiled after theconst
value changes, they may break [because they'll continue to use the previous value].
Solution 2:
A constant is static by definition.
Solution 3:
You can't have static const. Try readonly instead of const or simply drop the "static" since "const" is implied static anyway.
Solution 4:
Constants cannot be replaced in the code during compilation, not runtime, so there's no requirement for static vs instance definitions.
Solution 5:
All constants declarations are implicitly static, and the C# specification states that the (redundant) inclusion of the static modifier is prohibited. I believe this is to avoid the confusion which could occur if a reader were to see two constants, one declared static and one not – they could easily assume that the difference in specification implied a difference in semantics. Having said that, there is no prohibition on redundantly specifying an access modifier which is also the default one, where there is a choice. For instance, a (concrete) method can be explicitly marked as private despite that being the default. The rule appears to be that where there is no choice (e.g. a method declaration in an interface) the redundant modifier is prohibited. Where there is a choice, it’s allowed.