The C# team posts answers to common questions and describes new language features
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.
[Author: Jon Skeet]
I've wrote an article related to this context.
It can be found here - www.shloemi.com/.../csharp-const-constant-explained-by-faq-qa
So effectively, a constant and a static read only field would be the same thing?
I think "const" and "static readonly" are not the same. The "const" must be known at compile time. However "static readonly" is initialized at runtime, but its the value cannot be changed (because it's readonly) after initialization.
In practice, have a look at this example:
// Trying to assign an instance of a class StorageFolder (which can't be known at compile time) to FOO
// this will compile
private static readonly StorageFolder FOO = KnownFolders.DocumentsLibrary;
// this won't compile
private const StorageFolder FOO = KnownFolders.DocumentsLibrary;
Const must be declared and initialized at compile time. Read only can be initialized at run time and also can be changed, there is no problem with it.