When do you use scope without a statement in C#?

Question

Just recently I found out you can do this in C#:

{
    // google
    string url = \"#\";

    if ( value > 5 )
        url = \"http://google.com\";

    m         


        

Answer 1

One use that I find acceptable in many cases, is to enclose each switch section of a switch statement in a local scope.

---

Late addition:

The local scope blocks { ... } present in the C# source do not seem to be relevant for the resulting IL bytecode. I tried this simple example:

static void A()
{
    {
        var o = new object();
        Console.WriteLine(o);
    }

    var p = new object();
    Console.WriteLine(p);
}

static void B()
{
    var o = new object();
    Console.WriteLine(o);

    var p = new object();
    Console.WriteLine(p);
}


static void C()
{
    {
        var o = new object();
        Console.WriteLine(o);
    }

    {
        var o = new object();
        Console.WriteLine(o);
    }
}

This was compiled in Release mode (optimizations enabled). The resulting IL according to IL DASM is:

.method private hidebysig static void  A() cil managed
{
  // Code size       25 (0x19)
  .maxstack  1
  .locals init ([0] object o,
           [1] object p)
  IL_0000:  newobj     instance void [mscorlib]System.Object::.ctor()
  IL_0005:  stloc.0
  IL_0006:  ldloc.0
  IL_0007:  call       void [mscorlib]System.Console::WriteLine(object)
  IL_000c:  newobj     instance void [mscorlib]System.Object::.ctor()
  IL_0011:  stloc.1
  IL_0012:  ldloc.1
  IL_0013:  call       void [mscorlib]System.Console::WriteLine(object)
  IL_0018:  ret
} // end of method LocalScopeExamples::A

 

.method private hidebysig static void  B() cil managed
{
  // Code size       25 (0x19)
  .maxstack  1
  .locals init ([0] object o,
           [1] object p)
  IL_0000:  newobj     instance void [mscorlib]System.Object::.ctor()
  IL_0005:  stloc.0
  IL_0006:  ldloc.0
  IL_0007:  call       void [mscorlib]System.Console::WriteLine(object)
  IL_000c:  newobj     instance void [mscorlib]System.Object::.ctor()
  IL_0011:  stloc.1
  IL_0012:  ldloc.1
  IL_0013:  call       void [mscorlib]System.Console::WriteLine(object)
  IL_0018:  ret
} // end of method LocalScopeExamples::B

 

.method private hidebysig static void  C() cil managed
{
  // Code size       25 (0x19)
  .maxstack  1
  .locals init ([0] object o,
           [1] object V_1)
  IL_0000:  newobj     instance void [mscorlib]System.Object::.ctor()
  IL_0005:  stloc.0
  IL_0006:  ldloc.0
  IL_0007:  call       void [mscorlib]System.Console::WriteLine(object)
  IL_000c:  newobj     instance void [mscorlib]System.Object::.ctor()
  IL_0011:  stloc.1
  IL_0012:  ldloc.1
  IL_0013:  call       void [mscorlib]System.Console::WriteLine(object)
  IL_0018:  ret
} // end of method LocalScopeExamples::C

Conclusions:

• Local scope declarations do not exist in any form in the IL bytecode.
• The C# compiler will choose new names for local variables that would otherwise be in conflict (the second of the variables o in the C method).
• People who feel (see other answers and comments to question) that the garbage collector might be able to do its work earlier when they introduce local scope in the C# source, are wrong.

I also tried compiling this in Debug mode (no optimizations). The start and end of a local scope seem to show up as a nop instruction only ("No operation"). In some cases two identically named local variables from distinct local scopes were mapped to the same local variable in the IL, like with C# method named C above. Such a "unification" of two variables is only possible if their types are compatible.