<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="http://blogs.msdn.com/utility/FeedStylesheets/rss.xsl" media="screen"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/" xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"><channel><title>'const' vs 'static readonly'</title><link>http://blogs.msdn.com/davidklinems/archive/2006/10/27/const-vs-static-readonly.aspx</link><description>I'm a big fan of reusing code whenever and wherever possible. A long time ago, I wrote an assembly that provided common methods and data to some applications I was writing. When I first wrote the assembly, I exposedthe common data as public fields decorated</description><dc:language>en-US</dc:language><generator>CommunityServer 2.1 SP1 (Build: 61025.2)</generator><item><title>re: 'const' vs 'static readonly'</title><link>http://blogs.msdn.com/davidklinems/archive/2006/10/27/const-vs-static-readonly.aspx#906886</link><pubDate>Tue, 31 Oct 2006 12:16:07 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">91d46819-8472-40ad-a661-2c78acb4018c:906886</guid><dc:creator>Tammam Koujan</dc:creator><description>&lt;p&gt;usefull article&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Thank You&lt;/p&gt;</description></item><item><title>re: 'const' vs 'static readonly'</title><link>http://blogs.msdn.com/davidklinems/archive/2006/10/27/const-vs-static-readonly.aspx#1171589</link><pubDate>Wed, 29 Nov 2006 17:39:05 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">91d46819-8472-40ad-a661-2c78acb4018c:1171589</guid><dc:creator>Emma Middlebrook</dc:creator><description>&lt;P&gt;What do you think about this variation? It does the same thing but without the need to explain readonly vs const every time someone comes across the other version.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;public class HelperData&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;{&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp;public static Int32 Iterations {get { return 5};&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;}&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Emma&lt;BR&gt;&lt;BR&gt;&lt;STRONG&gt;&lt;EM&gt;David Kline: This is a valid variation as well.&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;My preference is&amp;nbsp;to use a static readonly field to avoid the overhead of a the method call.&lt;/EM&gt;&lt;/STRONG&gt;&lt;/P&gt;</description></item><item><title>Best of 2006</title><link>http://blogs.msdn.com/davidklinems/archive/2006/10/27/const-vs-static-readonly.aspx#1376293</link><pubDate>Fri, 29 Dec 2006 00:30:49 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">91d46819-8472-40ad-a661-2c78acb4018c:1376293</guid><dc:creator>David Kline</dc:creator><description>&lt;p&gt;I started this series last year and thought I would continue the tradition with my best of 2006 collection.&lt;/p&gt;</description></item></channel></rss>