How about const class

[lindexi]

How about the const class:

public const class Foo
{
      string F1 = "F1";
      string F2 = "F2";
}

Equal to:

    public static class Foo
    {
        public const string F1 = "F1";
        public const string F2 = "F2";
    }

[huoyaoyuan]

The syntax is counter-institutive. In C#, const is about immutability. Seeing the title const class implies some sort of immutable class for me.

[cheong00]

I think he want to talk about the idea of something like "string based enum".

The patent hold by Oracle is a major concern.

#274

Also see the idea of "enum class" in #144

[lindexi]

@cheong00 I do not think so.

const class Foo
{
           string F1 = "F1";
           int      F3 = 3;
}

[bernd5]

Just like "static class" forces that every member is static - in such a "const class" every member would be const...

Right?

[lindexi]

@bernd5 Yes

[Joe4evr]

Even if this was done, I sincerely doubt the implementation would let you omit the const modifier on the member declarations for the same reason that you don't get to omit the static modifier on members inside of static classes, so this would end up saving you a grand total of 1 character.

In that light, your options are:

1. Just say static class Constants and suck it up
2. If you really want to force a type to only contain const members, write a custom analyzer to enforce that semantic; that's what analyzers are meant for.