Simplify constant definitions

[dozer75]

In lots of code today, magic strings are used to in different scenarios. The nameof keyword greatly decreased the number of magic strings usages, simplified usage and reduced typos issues.

The nameof keyword also made it possible to create constant string definitions of the constant name which also is a lot of help. Constants are normally written like this:

public class SomeClass
{
    const string SomeConst = nameof(SomeConst);
}

However, I think writing constant string definitions like the above example is cumbersome, and I think that introducing a new keyword define constant definitions could be done in an easier format:

public class SomeClass
{
    define SomeConst;
}

Which internally should transform to a const string as defined in the previous const example.

The default access modifier for the define keyword should be the same as const.

An other option is to (as other has suggested) extending enum. The latter example is already covered by other issues, but the first would be nice that could be defined something like:

enum Consts : string
{
    SomeConst // same as const string SomeConst = nameof(SomeConst)
}

But I think that the latter will force developers to create unneccessary enums, especially in situations you only need a simple constant string within a class definition.

I think that this would ease a lot of const definitions for developers around the magic string issue.

[alrz]

call ToString on an enum would have the same effect. but it's not a constant. (#1028)

[dozer75]

Well, then it's just as easy creating a constant nameof

[MkazemAkhgary]

very nice proposal, only upvoted because of proposed enum part. (define keyword sounds very cheap but string enum Is very rich)

[svick]

I don't think string constants that contain their own name are so common to warrant their own keyword, especially not one as confusing as define. Consider that I would never guess that define SomeConst; is the same as const string SomeConst = "SomeConst";. Also, C# already has #define, which is very different.

[MkazemAkhgary]

@svick exactly, but enum : string looks very nice and the syntax describes what exactly it means.

[CyrusNajmabadi]

To me, this falls under the buckets of:

1. Not enough value over existing solutions.
2. Not common enough to benefit from being marginally better.