It's fine for one type to depend on another type being initialized, so long as you don't end up in a cycle.
Basically this is fine:
public class Child
{
static Child() {} // Added static constructor for extra predictability
public static readonly int X = 10;
}
public class Parent
{
static Parent() {} // Added static constructor for extra predictability
public static readonly int Y = Child.X;
}
The result is well-defined. Child's static variable initializers are executed prior to the first access to any static field in the class, as per section 10.5.5.1 of the spec.
This isn't though:
public class Child
{
public static readonly int Nasty = Parent.Y;
public static readonly int X = 10;
}
public class Parent
{
public static readonly int Y = Child.X;
}
In this latter case, you either end up with Child.Nasty=0, Parent.Y=10, Child.X=10 or Child.Nasty=0, Parent.Y=0, Child.X=10 depending on which class is accessed first.
Accessing Parent.Y first will start initializing Parent first, which triggers the initialization of Child. The initialization of Child will realise that Parent needs to be initialized, but the CLR knows that it's already being initialized, so carries on regardless, leading to the first set of numbers - because Child.X ends up being initialized before its value is used for Parent.Y.
Accessing Child.Nasty will start initializing Child first, which will then start to initialize Parent. The initialization of Parent will realise that Child needs to be initialized, but the CLR knows that it's already being initialized, so carries on regardless, leading to the second set of
answered 2009-09-10T14:47:04.080