The var keyword

AID: 2367

Status: Published

8900 points

Byzadeveloper
TypeTutorial
Posted on2010-01-30 at 17:27:56

Awards

Community Pick
Experts Exchange Approved

Introduction

Was the var keyword really only brought out to shorten your syntax? Or have the VB language guys got their way in C#? What type of variable is it? All will be revealed.

Also called: Implicitly typed local variables

The var keyword – in VB

I have heard many an argument about this new addition to the C# language. One of the main debates being: It’s so VB like, It reminds me of Dim. So this is all I am going to say about its use in VB (and only because I think if VB programmers use it may make their code just a little better).

Its use in VB is slightly different to that in C#. This is because VB has always had an unknown type keyword (dim), so you have to explicitly “turn on” the functionality by using the “Option Infer On” at the top of your module. So to finish off for VB: To use this functionality turn it on and the declare your Variable like so:

Dim MyStringVariable = "hello world"

When hovering the mouse over MyStringVariable you will notice the tooltip text says Dim MyStringVariable As String. So you will not be able to do your usual VB thing and change its type later on to an int!

The var keyword

First of all to ease all your minds the var keyword is not evil VB code creeping into your C# IDE! It is strongly typed (which means that you cannot put a string into it and then later on change its type to an int).

It must not be confused with the object data type – it is also not an object. So what is it? It is whatever you want it to be when declaring the variable. So if you type:

string MyString = "Hello world"; 
Console.WriteLine(MyString);

1:
2:

Select all Open in new window

It is no different from typing

var MyString = "Hello world"; 
Console.WriteLine(MyString);

1:
2:

Select all Open in new window

In fact, when you compile it the IL Code will look like this for both scenarios.

.method private hidebysig static void Main(string[] args) cil managed
{
    .entrypoint
    .maxstack 1
    .locals init (
        [0] string MyString)
    L_0000: nop 
    L_0001: ldstr "Hello world"
    L_0006: stloc.0 
    L_0007: ldloc.0 
    L_0008: call void [mscorlib]System.Console::WriteLine(string)
    L_000d: nop 
    L_000e: ret 
}

1:
2:
3:
4:
5:
6:
7:
8:
9:
10:
11:
12:
13:
14:

Select all Open in new window

So what is the point - Is all this effort really to save me from typing out the extra three chars that there are in the word string? Well yes, and no.

First we will explore the Yes answer. Since the addition of Generics in C# two lines of code can become very long. For instance:

Line1:  List<string> MyStringList = new List<string>();

1:

Select all Open in new window

Is shortened to

Line 2:  var MyStringList = new List<string>();

1:

Select all Open in new window

As you can imagine, some declarations can become quite long.

In line 1 you are saying: I am declaring a List of strings and I want to assign it to a list of strings object. Using the var keyword you are saying that I have a variable and it is a list of strings – you don’t have to say it twice. To strengthen this point: You cannot declare a var and then initalise it later. When using the var keyword you have to initalise it on the same line (Only exception is that you cannot initalise it using a collection initaliser). And you cannot initalise it to a Lamda expression.

The following lines of code are errors and will not compile:

var x;

1:

Select all Open in new window

var x = null;

1:

Select all Open in new window

var x = {"1", "2"};

1:

Select all Open in new window

var x = () => { j = 10; return j > 9; };

1:

Select all Open in new window

Now we shall explore the No part of the answer.

All this effort in not only to save me from typing out the extra three chars in the word "string." There are actually types in C# that have no name. These are called Anonymous types. They are not any conventional type of object, but they do exist and you cannot initalise them without using the var keyword.

Example 1:

var Car = new { Manufacturer = "Audi", Model = "A4", Year = 2006, Colour = System.Drawing.Color.Blue };
Console.Write(Car.Colour + " " + Car.Manufacturer + " " + Car.Model + " " + Car.Year);

1:
2:

Select all Open in new window

As you can see from the (pretty useless) example above that we now have an object which we don’t know what its name is, but we have assigned the variable Car to it, and Car has all of the valid properties to it. However it will print out to the console:

Color [Blue] Audi A4 2006

Example 2:

A more useful example would be when querying an Object / XML / Anything using Linq.

var Articles = (from a in context.Articles
                orderby a.CreateDateTime descending 
                select  new { ArticalTitle = a.Title, Created= a.CreateDateTime }).Take(5);
        
foreach (var article in Articles )
{
     string s = article.ArticalTitle;
     DateTime d = article.Created;
}

1:
2:
3:
4:
5:
6:
7:
8:
9:

Select all Open in new window

So instead of bringing back the SQL whole object (in this case) a new anonymous object is created and returned. This I suppose was the main reason for the keyword.

Conclusion

Using var should be embraced by developers worldwide. There is no way to misuse this keyword. It is always good! The only conceivable reason not to use it would be if you don’t know the data type of the “RHS” of the =. This could possibly lead to reading issues ... but not really. Ie:
var x = 0;
you know 0 is an int. Therefore x is an int. However
var c = MyObject.variable;
(a newbie to the project may not know what datatype variable is of class MyObject). Developers working with the project should know. Moreover, correctly named variables should sort out this issue. Example: Without knowing anything about a class we could guess that the property StartDate is a type of System.DateTime. Else whip the developer if it's a string!!!

Originally Posted @ http://www.zadeveloper.com/

Asked On: 2010-01-30 at 17:27:56ID2367
Tags: c# var keyword
,; csharp
,; Implicitly typed local variables
Topic: C# Programming Language
Views: 3477

About The Author

zadeveloper

zadeveloper has 10+ years experience

Architect | .NET | C# | C++ | MSSQL | SAP
www.zadeveloper.com

To God be the glory, great things he has done.

More Articles From zadeveloper

Comments

Expert Comment

by: rg20 on 2010-03-25 at 07:10:23ID: 11752

Just curious in you example

var Car = new { Manufacturer = "Audi", Model = "A4", Year = 2006, Colour = System.Drawing.Color.Blue };
Console.Write(Car.Colour + " " + Car.Manufacturer + " " + Car.Model + " " + Car.Year);

Considering Car is a method of transportation or a vehicle, could it not be referenced by it's class name

Car car
Transportation Car
Automobile Car

Or whatever the class defines it as?

Your second example your right I don't know what that could be.

Author Comment

by: zadeveloper on 2010-03-25 at 08:00:03ID: 11754

Hi rg20.

In the example Car is created as an object of an unknow type, as there is no class/ interface defining "car". In production this is not something I would recommend doing in this senario. The example was given to show that the variable Car can be used after it definition and the ide and compiler are aware of the properties created withing the parenthisis. (ie: Manufacturer, Model etc..)- althouggh I dont have a definition for that object type. (Hence I have to assign it by using var)

In development I have not yet come across a senario that I would use this sort of object instantiation, however I think I would use it instead of creating a class that I will only use once, or to create a object with a subset of properties.

senario where I may consider using it:

I might have a class called Automobile which has 50 properties, Now lets say Im writing a wcf service which passes data over the internet. now the user has asked for the color, make and model of the cars to be returned. I would create a object like this:

var car = new Automobile (some parameters);
// at this point car contains 50 properties (1 of which is a 10 MB image)

var result = new { Model = car.Model, Make= car.Make, Colour = car.Colour };

then I would return the object result to the user - using only the required amount of bandwidth :)

hope this helps :)

then I would do something like this:

Author Comment

by: zadeveloper on 2010-03-25 at 08:01:17ID: 11755

sorry - please ignore the last line

Expert Comment

by: rg20 on 2010-03-25 at 08:10:14ID: 11756

that makes sense, but the only time I use var is during a LINQ query, but I think thats becuase I am not smart enough at this point to know what is coming back to me. I don't have a lot of time to figure it out either. ;)

Thanks

Expert Comment

by: joep_b on 2010-07-03 at 05:09:45ID: 16572

I guess the var-keyword has two big reasons to exist.

One is being able to use automatically generated types like your Car.

The second one is to make the existance of Linq possible:
I'd hate code to be littered with definitions like Dictionary<int,OrderedQuery<IQueriable<Group<Expression<Car>>>>> and them getting me in trouble when I decide I don't need the result to be ordered after all.

Expert Comment

by: DragonWolf on 2010-07-13 at 01:50:22ID: 16933

I'm in favour of using the var keyword where possible but I disagree with the last piece of your conclusion slightly,

var myVariable = this.GetSomeVariable()

In this case, I would avoid using the var keyword as it is unclear what the variable is. Your argument may be that the variable name and the method name should be meaningful, such as,

var startDate = this.CalculateNewStartDate();

Like this is better, and is probably a DateTime, but you still don't know,

var duration = this.CalculateDuration();

is worse since at a glance, it is not obvious if this is a TimeSpan, int, long, uint, ulong, Decimal, etc. In this case, I think you should explicitly declare the variable type.

TimeSpan duration = this.CalculateDuration();

Although you can use intellisense, I still like to be able to look at something's declaration and know instantly what it is. And if you aim for the "no method should be more than 10 lines of code" practise, then your declaration should always be on the same screen (no scrolling back to find the declaration).

Author Comment

by: zadeveloper on 2010-07-13 at 03:10:56ID: 16936

Hey DragonWolf

Thanks for the comment. I think that in such a case its a matter of personal taste (as it really does not matter to the compiler how you declare the variable).

I try to follow the "Don't have stupid method names" approach. However there are times like:

var duration = this.CalculateDuration();

where the type is not very clear. In this case its only difficult to read on paper and a mouse over will identify the strong type.

But pretty much its up to the developer/ developer team standards that would dictate this call.

Thanks for the input.

Expert Comment

by: TheMozz on 2010-12-02 at 11:12:33ID: 21796

Excellent write up, I look forward to seeing more from you!