Why can’t I use static and const together?

const object is always static, so this both cannot be achieved.

Reference : MSDN

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.

Mark as answer, if helpful.

1 Reply

Know the answer? Post it — somebody with the same question will find it here.

Bhuvanesh Mohankumar10y ago
const object is always static, so this both cannot be achieved.
Reference : MSDN
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.
Mark as answer, if helpful.
0