.net – the difference between boxing/unboxing and type casting

.netboxingcastingunboxing

What is the difference between boxing/unboxing and type casting?

Often, the terms seem to be used interchangeably.

Best Solution

Boxing refers to a conversion of a non-nullable-value type into a reference type or the conversion of a value type to some interface that it implements (say int to IComparable<int>). Further, the conversion of an underlying value type to a nullable type is also a boxing conversion. (Caveat: Most discussions of this subject will ignore the latter two types of conversions.)

For example,

int i = 5;
object o = i;

converts i to an instance of type object.

Unboxing refers to an explicit conversion from an instance of object or ValueType to a non-nullable-value type, the conversion of an interface type to a non-nullable-value type (e.g., IComparable<int> to int). Further, the conversion of a nullable type to the underlying type is also an unboxing conversion. (Caveat: Most discussion of this subject will ignore the latter two types of conversions.)

For example,

object o = (int)5;
int i = (int)o;

converts the integer boxed in o to an instance of type int.

A type cast is an explicit conversion of an expression to a given type. Thus

(type) expression

explicitly converts expression to an object of type type.

This is the style that Microsoft tends to use in their examples.

It appears that the guidance in this area may have changed, as StyleCop now enforces the use of the C# specific aliases.

C# – the difference between const and readonly in C#

Apart from the apparent difference of

having to declare the value at the time of a definition for a const VS readonly values can be computed dynamically but need to be assigned before the constructor exits.. after that it is frozen.
const's are implicitly static. You use a ClassName.ConstantName notation to access them.

There is a subtle difference. Consider a class defined in AssemblyA.

public class Const_V_Readonly
{
  public const int I_CONST_VALUE = 2;
  public readonly int I_RO_VALUE;
  public Const_V_Readonly()
  {
     I_RO_VALUE = 3;
  }
}

AssemblyB references AssemblyA and uses these values in code. When this is compiled:

in the case of the const value, it is like a find-replace. The value 2 is 'baked into' the AssemblyB's IL. This means that if tomorrow I update I_CONST_VALUE to 20, AssemblyB would still have 2 till I recompile it.
in the case of the readonly value, it is like a ref to a memory location. The value is not baked into AssemblyB's IL. This means that if the memory location is updated, AssemblyB gets the new value without recompilation. So if I_RO_VALUE is updated to 30, you only need to build AssemblyA and all clients do not need to be recompiled.

So if you are confident that the value of the constant won't change, use a const.

public const int CM_IN_A_METER = 100;

But if you have a constant that may change (e.g. w.r.t. precision).. or when in doubt, use a readonly.

public readonly float PI = 3.14;

Update: Aku needs to get a mention because he pointed this out first. Also I need to plug where I learned this: Effective C# - Bill Wagner

Best Solution

Related Solutions

C# – the difference between String and string in C#

This is the style that Microsoft tends to use in their examples.

C# – the difference between const and readonly in C#

Related Question