I think this is a by-design behavior. The Test = { 1, 2, 3 }
is compiled into code that calls Add
method of the list stored in the Test
field.
The reason why you're getting NullReferenceException
is that Test
is null
. If you initialize the Test
field to a new list, then the code will work:
class Test {
public List<int> Field = new List<int>();
}
// Calls 'Add' method three times to add items to 'Field' list
var t = new Test { Field = { 1, 2, 3 } };
It is quite logical - if you write new List<int> { ... }
then it creates a new instance of list. If you don't add object construction, it will use the existing instance (or null
). As far as I can see, the C# spec doesn't contain any explicit translation rule that would match this scenario, but it gives an example (see Section 7.6.10.3):
A List<Contact>
can be created and initialized as follows:
var contacts = new List<Contact> {
new Contact {
Name = "Chris Smith",
PhoneNumbers = { "206-555-0101", "425-882-8080" }
},
new Contact {
Name = "Bob Harris",
PhoneNumbers = { "650-555-0199" }
}
};
which has the same effect as
var contacts = new List<Contact>();
Contact __c1 = new Contact();
__c1.Name = "Chris Smith";
__c1.PhoneNumbers.Add("206-555-0101");
__c1.PhoneNumbers.Add("425-882-8080");
contacts.Add(__c1);
Contact __c2 = new Contact();
__c2.Name = "Bob Harris";
__c2.PhoneNumbers.Add("650-555-0199");
contacts.Add(__c2);
where __c1
and __c2
are temporary variables that are otherwise invisible and inaccessible.
与恶龙缠斗过久,自身亦成为恶龙;凝视深渊过久,深渊将回以凝视…