C# Nested initialization strangeness

Question

Under the premise that these initialization statements compile

List<int> l = new List<int> { 1, 2, 3 };
Dictionary<int, int> d = new Dictionary<int, int> { [1] = 11, [2] = 22 };
Foo f = new Foo { Bar = new List<int>() };

and this will not

List<int> l = { 1, 2, 3 };
Dictionary<int, int> d = { [1] = 11, [2] = 22 };
Foo f = { Bar = new List<int>() };

I have a question about nested initializations. Given the following class

public class Foo {
    public List<int> Bar { get; set; } = new List<int>();
    public Dictionary<int, Foo> Baz { get; set; } = new Dictionary<int, Foo>();
}

I discovered by accident that you could actually do this:

Foo f = new Foo {
    Bar = { 1, 2, 3 },
    Baz = {
        [1] = {
            Bar = { 4, 5, 6 }
        }
    }
};

While it does compile it throws a KeyNotFoundException. So I changed the properties to

public List<int> Bar { get; set; } = new List<int> { 4, 5, 6 };
public Dictionary<int, Foo> Baz { get; set; }
    = new Dictionary<int, Foo> { [1] = new Foo { Bar = new List<int>() { 1, 2, 3 } } };

assuming that this is some unusual notation for replacing existing members. Now the initialization throws a StackOverflowException.

So my question is, why does the expression even compile? What is it supposed to do? I feel like I must be missing something really obvious.

The stack overflow is simply due to the fact that creating a Foo will create a Dictionary and creates a Foo to add to it, that in turn creates a Dictionary with a Foo and so on. — juharr
– juharr, Commented Jan 4, 2017 at 14:11
Note you can change it to Baz = { {1, new Foo { Bar = {4,5,6}}}}; to get it to work because that notation uses the Add(Tkey, TValue) of Dictionary and in that case it will not compile without the new Foo. — juharr
– juharr, Commented Jan 4, 2017 at 14:30

Jon Skeet · Accepted Answer · 2017-01-04 14:24:11Z

7

So my question is, why does the expression even compile?

It's an object initializer with a collection initializer value. From the C# specification section 7.6.10.2:

A member initializer that specifies a collection initializer after the equals sign is an initialization of an embedded collection. Instead of assigning a new collection to the field or property, the elements given in the initializer are added to the collection referenced by the field or property.

So your code code is roughly equivalent to:

Foo tmp = new Foo();
tmp.Bar.Add(1);
tmp.Bar.Add(2);
tmp.Bar.Add(3);
tmp.Baz[1].Bar.Add(4); // This will throw KeyNotFoundException if Baz is empty
tmp.Baz[1].Bar.Add(5);
tmp.Baz[1].Bar.Add(6);
Foo f = tmp;

Your initialization version will throw a StackOverflowException because the initializer for Foo needs to create a new instance of Foo, which needs to create a new instance of Foo etc.

edited Jan 4, 2017 at 14:24

answered Jan 4, 2017 at 14:11

Jon Skeet

1.5m893 gold badges9.3k silver badges9.3k bronze badges

Sign up to request clarification or add additional context in comments.

9 Comments

Marcus S. Over a year ago

The StackOverflowException was a stupid oversight. I wasn't aware of this part of the specification though. Thanks

dance2die Over a year ago

I still don't get this. In which line of code is an object instance of "Foo" gets created recursively?

juharr Over a year ago

Shouldn't that be temp.Baz[1].Bar.Add(4)?

juharr Over a year ago

@Sung If you mean the Foo in the dictionary, then there isn't a Foo being created, it's assuming there is a Foo already at index 1 and it's just adding values to it's Bar.

Marcus S. Over a year ago

I wonder what use case they had in mind with the "typeless" Dictionary initialization. This notation would be really nice and concise if it did (tmp.Baz.ContainsKey(1) ? tmp.Baz[1] : tmp.Baz[1] = new ...).Bar.Add(4) instead

|

Collectives™ on Stack Overflow

C# Nested initialization strangeness

1 Answer 1

9 Comments

Your Answer

Hot Network Questions

Collectives™ on Stack Overflow

1 Answer 1

9 Comments

Your Answer

Sign up or log in

Post as a guest

Related