Is there a special name given to a type defined within a named namespace?

Question

3.00/5 (2 votes)

See more:

A type that is not defined in a named namespace is called a "top level type". A namespace not defined in a named namespace is called a top level namespace. Hence a type not defined in a named namedspace is called a top level type.

public class TopLevelType
{
    //body
}

A type that is defined within a type is called a "nested type".

namespace SampleNamespace
{
    public class ClassFoo
    {
        public class NestedType
        {
            //body
        }
    }
}

But what do you call a type that is simply defined within a named namespace? Is there a special name given to it just as with the others?

namespace SampleNamespace
{
    public class ClassFoo
    {
        //body
    }
}

What I have tried:

C# Language
Visual Studio
C# 9.0 and below

Posted 4-Sep-21 12:40pm

CBennigton

Updated 5-Sep-21 14:37pm

v2

Add a Solution

2 solutions

Add a Solution

Add your solution here

Treat my content as plain text, not as HTML

Preview 0

…

Existing Members

Sign in to your account

...or Join us

Download, Vote, Comment, Publish.

Your Email
Password
Forgot your password?

Your Email
This email is in use. Do you need your password?
Optional Password

I have read and agree to the Terms of Service and Privacy Policy
Please subscribe me to the CodeProject newsletters

When answering a question please:

Read the question carefully.
Understand that English isn't everyone's first language so be lenient of bad spelling and grammar.
If a question is poorly phrased then either ask for clarification, ignore it, or edit the question and fix the problem. Insults are not welcome.
Don't tell someone to read the manual. Chances are they have and don't get it. Provide an answer or move on to the next question.

Let's work to help developers, not make them feel stupid.

This content, along with any associated source code and files, is licensed under The Code Project Open License (CPOL)

Dave Kreskowiak · Accepted Answer · 2021-09-04T15:52:00

Solution 1

No, there's no special name.

It's just a "type", no matter where it's defined.

*

Posted 4-Sep-21 15:52pm

Dave Kreskowiak

Comments

CBennigton 6-Sep-21 3:06am

As for what is a "top level type". Even though it's not an official C# term such a term its seems correct that a type defined directly under the global namespace (not in a named namespace) is called a top level type. Since as stated a namespace defined directly under the global namespace is called top level namespace.

Not sure if you agree with that, what do you think?

Dave Kreskowiak 6-Sep-21 9:56am

You can call it whatever you want. Just don't try to talk to someone using that term because nobody will know what you're talking about.

BillWoodruff · Accepted Answer · 2021-09-05T14:37:00

Solution 2

Quote:
But what do you call a type that is simply defined within a named namespace? Is there a special name given to it just as with the others?

You cannot create Types that are not "in" some NameSpace.

It may appear you can, but, such Types, not in the scope of a "visible" NameSpace, end up in the the global/root/default NameSpace: [^], [^], [^].

I consider any use of the global namespace that is not explicit to be a sign of poor programming.

Posted 5-Sep-21 14:37pm

BillWoodruff

Comments

CBennigton 6-Sep-21 3:07am

As for what is a "top level type". Even though it's not an official C# term such a term its seems correct that a type defined directly under the global namespace (not in a named namespace) is called a top level type. Since as stated a namespace defined directly under the global namespace is called top level namespace.

Not sure if you agree with that, what do you think?

BillWoodruff 6-Sep-21 3:40am

You can call it what you like :) I prefer to use the MS terms. 'root, 'default, 'global.

Keep in mind the "existential" difference between NameSpaces you declare, and the invocation of NameSpaces which 'Using statements activate by loadinf dll's.

BillWoodruff 6-Sep-21 8:42am

upcoming features of 'using in .NET 6:

https://dotnetcoretutorials.com/2021/08/31/implicit-using-statements-in-net-6/?utm_source=.NET+Core+Tutorials

CBennigton 7-Sep-21 20:44pm

If I may add on one more final detail to this discussion, a well known C# programmer by the name of Jon Skeet even uses the term "top level type".

If you look at his solution https://stackoverflow.com/a/9443365 in the following Stack Over Flow post he actually refers to the class defined directly under the global namespace as the "top level type" rather than the class defined under named namespace Foo as the top level type.

Which as a result, is another reason that has led me to believe that only types (structs, enums, classes, interfaces or delegates) defined directly under the global namespace (e.g. global::TopLevelType) and thus, not referring to types defined in a named namespace, are called "top level types".

You are probably already annoyed by me asking these kinds of questions but if you can give me your insight on what I mentioned above (if anything that is) i'd appreciate it. Thank you for your time. I hope to hear from you soon.

BillWoodruff 7-Sep-21 20:58pm

Hi, More stunned than "annoyed" :)

If you are reading Jon Skeet, Eric Lippert, Mads Torgersen, Michaelis, Troelsen, et. al., you are at the right place (sorry for any misspellings).

I have no opinion on the issue you describe, but, Delegates as global sounds "off."

This IS the book you need;

https://www.oreilly.com/library/view/the-c-programming/9780132484718/

https://www.amazon.com/Programming-Language-Covering-Portable-Documents-ebook/dp/B004BSFKXY

The annotations by "Brad Abrams, Joseph Albahari, Krzysztof Cwalina, Jesse Liberty, Eric Lippert, Christian Nagel, Vladimir Reshetnikov, Marek Safar, Chris Sells, Peter Sestoft, Jon Skeet, and Bill Wagner" are pure gold.

CBennigton 7-Sep-21 21:54pm

Awesome. After looking into at the sample pages provided by amazon it looks like a great read. Thanks for the recommendation.

Richard MacCutchan 8-Sep-21 5:43am

Jon's code actually states:

global::Bar bar2 = null; // Refers to the "top level" Bar

The double quotes around "top level" is just his way of pointing the questioner to the part of the code outside (or above) the local namespace. It has no official status.

CBennigton 8-Sep-21 12:55pm

That is true. The term "top level" has no official definition in any C# documentation. It's only an assumption I made from the code comment Jon made. But if "top level namespace" refers to a namespace not defined in a named namespace, then I would asssume "top level type" only refers to a type not defined in a named namespace as well.

Richard MacCutchan 8-Sep-21 16:05pm

I don't quite understand why you are getting so hung up on terminology which does not exist. As Dave Kreskowiak already said, you can call it what you like (to yourself), but that still does not mean anything to most developers.

CBennigton 8-Sep-21 19:13pm

Well such a type must have special name given to it, right? Not sure if such a term exists. According Dave Kreskowiak no such term exists. If that's true I'll just stick to calling it a "top level type".

Hopefully the resource BillWoodruff recommended will have the answers I'm looking for.

BillWoodruff 8-Sep-21 21:18pm

Once again, imho, you are looking for semantic precision for terms that are, in common usage, used flexibly.

I might use the term "top level" to describe the root nodes of a treeview, or the classes that directly implement an interface.

imho, common usage often "makes sense" because the CONTEXT the term is used in makes one interpretation of the term almost certain.

You might consider posting on Quora or Reddit, where you might get some interesting responses from professionals outside the .NET/C# "universe."

good luck, Bill

Richard MacCutchan 9-Sep-21 3:51am

Well such a type must have special name given to it, right?No, because it is no different from any other type.