看看下面这段代码,你觉得它会输出什么呢?
class Foo
{
public Foo(string s)
{
Console.WriteLine("Foo constructor: {0}", s);
}
public void Bar(){}
}
class Base
{
readonly Foo baseFoo = new Foo("Base initializer");
public Base()
{
Console.WriteLine("Base constructor");
}
}
class Derived : Base
{
readonly Foo derivedFoo = new Foo("Derived initializer.");
public Derived()
{
Console.WriteLine("Derived constructor");
}
}
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
new Derived();
}
}
先猜一下吧,似乎应该是“Base initializer, Base constructor, Derived initializer, Derived constructor”。
事实上,应当是先执行类成员的初始化,顺序是从derived到base,然后是两个构造函数,顺序是从base从derived。
这种方式是很有意义的,在类继承体系中层次较深的类(离System.Object较远)将依赖于较浅的类(离System.Object较近)。但是很多人会相信调用的顺序应当等价于下面的伪代码:
// 期望的顺序
BaseConstructor()
{
ObjectConstructor();
baseFoo = new Foo("Base initializer");
Console.WriteLine("Base constructor");
}
DerivedConstructor()
{
BaseConstructor();
derivedFoo = new Foo("Derived initializer");
Console.WriteLine("Derived constructor");
}
而实际情况则是:
// 实际的顺序
BaseConstructor()
{
baseFoo = new Foo("Base initializer");
ObjectConstructor();
Console.WriteLine("Base constructor");
}
DerivedConstructor()
{
derivedFoo = new Foo("Derived initializer");
BaseConstructor();
Console.WriteLine("Derived constructor");
}
那么,这样处理是为什么呢?
...
...
...
我们来看一下,如果代码按期望的顺序(第一段伪代码)执行,会产生什么问题:
class Base
{
public Base()
{
Console.WriteLine("Base constructor");
if (this is Derived) (this as Derived).DoIt();
// 如果是在创建Derived类的实例,就会遭遇null。
Blah();
// 如果是在创建MoreDerived类的实例,就会遭遇null。
}
public virtual void Blah() { }
}
class Derived : Base
{
readonly Foo derivedFoo = new Foo("Derived initializer");
public DoIt()
{
derivedFoo.Bar();
}
}
class MoreDerived : Derived
{
public override void Blah() { DoIt(); }
}
看Base类的构造函数,如果按期望的顺序执行,那么在Base方法执行时,Derived类的实例成员并没有得到初始化,此时就会有NullReference异常了。
而按照实际执行的顺序,所有的实例成员都能确保被完整地初始化:)
当然了,如果readonly字段是在构造函数中进行的,那么上面的确保机制就不复存在了。
参考:
Why Do Initializers Run In The Opposite Order As Constructors? Part One
Why Do Initializers Run In The Opposite Order As Constructors? Part Two