[Proposal]: Allow nameof to always access instance members from static context (VS 17.7, .NET 8)

[YairHalberstadt]

Allow nameof to always access instance members from static context

• [x] Proposed
• [x] Prototype: Done
• [x] Implementation: Done
• [ ] Specification: Not Started

Summary

For background see https://github.com/dotnet/roslyn/pull/48754

The current compiler has some interesting behavior with regards to accessing instance members from a static context:

using System;
public struct C {
    public string P;
    public static string M1() => nameof(P); // Legal
    public static string M2() => nameof(P.Length); // error CS0120: An object reference is required for the non-static field, method, or property 'C.P'
}

Where even though P is an instance member you can access it from a static context, but you can't access P.Length.

The relevant part of the spec is this:

The meaning of the named_entity of a nameof_expression is the meaning of it as an expression; that is, either as a simple_name, a base_access or a member_access. However, where the lookup described in Simple names and Member access results in an error because an instance member was found in a static context, a nameof_expression produces no such error.

This is somewhat ambiguous, but can be interpreted as saying only the top level lookup ignores errors where an instance member was found in a static context, but nested lookups do not. See here https://github.com/dotnet/roslyn/pull/48754#issuecomment-712295307.

My request here is twofold:

1. Firstly can the LDT clarify the meaning of the spec here.
2. If the current behavior is not a bug, can we allow this in a future language version.

Motivation

1. Remove a strange and confusing inconsistency in what's allowed.
2. Attribute arguments are considered a static context, and accessing instance members is often useful in them, e.g. when using the ForeignKeyAttribute.

Detailed design

Update the spec from:

The meaning of the named_entity of a nameof_expression is the meaning of it as an expression; that is, either as a simple_name, a base_access or a member_access. However, where the lookup described in Simple names and Member access results in an error because an instance member was found in a static context, a nameof_expression produces no such error.

To

The meaning of a named_entity is the meaning of it as an expression; that is, either as a simple_name, a base_access or a member_access. However, where the lookup described in Simple names and Member access results in an error because an instance member was found in a static context, a nameof_expression produces no such error.

Drawbacks

This is not a particularly common scenario, and so probably not worth changing the spec for, if it's decided that the current implementation is not a bug.

Alternatives

Unresolved questions

Design meetings

https://github.com/dotnet/csharplang/blob/master/meetings/2020/LDM-2020-11-11.md#allow-nameof-to-access-instance-members-from-static-contexts

[jrmoreno1]

If you change P.Length to C.P.Length, it compiles, which to my mind argues that it is a bug. Instance or not shouldn’t ever impact nameof, that’s just confusing.

[YairHalberstadt]

I have an implementation at https://github.com/dotnet/roslyn/pull/48754

[jrmoreno1]

I know c# isn't vb, but I was extremely surprised to find out that the equivalent of:

Sub Main
	Dim d = New Dictionary(Of String, String) 
	Console.WriteLine(Nameof(d.First().Key))
End Sub

void Main()
{
	var d = new Dictionary<string, string>();
	Console.WriteLine(nameof(d.First().Key));
}

doesn't work.

[333fred]

Sub Main
	Dim d = New Dictionary(Of String, String) 
	Console.WriteLine(Nameof(d.First().Key))
End Sub

This doesn't compile in VB either though: https://sharplab.io/#v2:EYLgtghglgdgNAGxAN2HALiKC4BMQDUAPgJJgAOA9gE7oDOABAMoCed6ApmALABQZVWo1bsuAOgDClBAg4BjdFEow6YgOIcYHalDl8+ABQCuwBLoYSEEOowl8GD5iYYBZaDHuOvAEShgGuAwAvAwAchwA7gy+CkowENQsABQA8gBmzOg6MADmcJnZOQCUnl4OUirSHGIA6jqcADKwHEmhEGAc6Um4YgBiUNTsSUViANIcLEUlvF4AojCBTCZ884GW1nRAA==.

[jjonescz]

I think no update to C# spec is needed. The quote in this issue comes from closed PR https://github.com/dotnet/csharpstandard/pull/10. The current spec looks fine: §11.7.20 Nameof expressions.

@333fred

[jrmoreno1]

@333fred :

Sub Main
	Dim d = New Dictionary(Of String, String) 
	Console.WriteLine(Nameof(d.First().Key))
End Sub

This doesn't compile in VB either though:

If you use:

Sub Main
	Dim d = New Dictionary(Of String, String)
	Console.WriteLine(NameOf(d.First.Key))
End Sub

it does: https://sharplab.io/#v2:EYLgtghglgdgNAGxAN2HALiKC4BMQDUAPgJJgAOA9gE7oDOABAMoCed6ApmALABQZVWo1bsuAOgDClBAg4BjdFEow6YgOIcYHalDl8BNeszacwYgDKwAjnz4AFAK7AEuhhIQQ6jCXwZ/mTgwAstAwvv4RACJQYAy4DAC8DAByHADuDNEKSjAQ1CwAFADyAGbM6DowAOZw5ZVVAJThEX5SKtIcYgDqOpyWWgXJEGAcpQW4YgBiUNTsYgDSHCwNTbwRAKIw8UxOfJvx7p50QA=

[Pentadome]

Same with open generic types.

nameof(Foor<>.Bar) doesn't work, but nameof(Foo<object>.Bar) does. Why do I need to specify a type argument if i just want the string "Bar"?

[jnm2]

That is quite a wart. Discussion: https://github.com/dotnet/csharplang/discussions/2547

[HaloFour]

To keep the spec simple the design of nameof was that it involve no new syntax, it took only what would be already legal syntax and replaced what appeared to be a method invocation with the name constant, if there was no method named nameof in scope. As M(Foo<>.Bar) was not legal syntax, neither would nameof(Foo<>.Bar) be. At this point it feels like this decision has created enough warts that need to be individually addressed that IMO it should be up for reconsideration, especially in the context of potentially making nameof a proper keyword instead of contextual.