Creating a Constant Dictionary in C#

What is the most efficient way to create a constant (never changes at runtime) mapping of strings to ints?

I've tried using a const Dictionary, but that didn't work out.

I could implement a immutable wrapper with appropriate semantics, but that still doesn't seem totally right.


For those who have asked, I'm implementing IDataErrorInfo in a generated class and am looking for a way to make the columnName lookup into my array of descriptors.

I wasn't aware (typo when testing! d'oh!) that switch accepts strings, so that's what I'm gonna use. Thanks!

1

11 Answers

Creating a truly compile-time generated constant dictionary in C# is not really a straightforward task. Actually, none of the answers here really achieve that.

There is one solution though which meets your requirements, although not necessarily a nice one; remember that according to the C# specification, switch-case tables are compiled to constant hash jump tables. That is, they are constant dictionaries, not a series of if-else statements. So consider a switch-case statement like this:

switch (myString)
{
   case "cat": return 0;
   case "dog": return 1;
   case "elephant": return 3;
}

This is exactly what you want. And yes, I know, it's ugly.

6

There are precious few immutable collections in the current framework. I can think of one relatively pain-free option in .NET 3.5:

Use Enumerable.ToLookup() - the Lookup<,> class is immutable (but multi-valued on the rhs); you can do this from a Dictionary<,> quite easily:

    Dictionary<string, int> ids = new Dictionary<string, int> {
      {"abc",1}, {"def",2}, {"ghi",3}
    };
    ILookup<string, int> lookup = ids.ToLookup(x => x.Key, x => x.Value);
    int i = lookup["def"].Single();
enum Constants
{
    Abc = 1,
    Def = 2,
    Ghi = 3
}

...

int i = (int)Enum.Parse(typeof(Constants), "Def");
1

I am not sure why no one mentioned this but in C# for things that I cannot assign const, I use static read-only properties.

Example:

public static readonly Dictionary<string, string[]> NewDictionary = new Dictionary<string, string[]>()
        {
            { "Reference1", Array1 },
            { "Reference2", Array2 },
            { "Reference3", Array3 },
            { "Reference4", Array4 },
            { "Reference5", Array5 }
        };
1

This is the closest thing you can get to a "CONST Dictionary":

public static int GetValueByName(string name)
{
    switch (name)
    {
        case "bob": return 1;
        case "billy": return 2;
        default: return -1;
    }
}

The compiler will be smart enough to build the code as clean as possible.

If using 4.5+ Framework I would use ReadOnlyDictionary (also ReadOnly Collection for lists) to do readonly mappings/constants. It's implemented in the following way.

static class SomeClass
{
    static readonly ReadOnlyDictionary<string,int> SOME_MAPPING 
        = new ReadOnlyDictionary<string,int>(
            new Dictionary<string,int>()
            {
                { "One", 1 },
                { "Two", 2 }
            }
        )
}        
2

Why not use namespaces or classes to nest your values? It may be imperfect, but it is very clean.

public static class ParentClass
{
    // here is the "dictionary" class
    public static class FooDictionary
    {
        public const string Key1 = "somevalue";
        public const string Foobar = "fubar";
    }
}

Now you can access .ParentClass.FooDictionary.Key1, etc.

1

As of C# 8, the new switch expression is the cleanest way to achieve the result:

int value = inputString switch {
    "one" => 1,
    "two" => 2,
    _ => -1
};

or as a function

int GetValue(string inputString) => inputString switch {
    "one" => 1,
    "two" => 2,
    _ => -1
};

It is more concise that the "old" one:

int value = -1;
switch (inputString){
    case "one": value=1; break;
    case "two": value=2; break;
}

The difference in performance of the old and new one can vary across different compilers

2

Just another idea since I am binding to a winforms combobox:

public enum DateRange {
    [Display(Name = "None")]
    None = 0,
    [Display(Name = "Today")]
    Today = 1,
    [Display(Name = "Tomorrow")]
    Tomorrow = 2,
    [Display(Name = "Yesterday")]
    Yesterday = 3,
    [Display(Name = "Last 7 Days")]
    LastSeven = 4,
    [Display(Name = "Custom")]
    Custom = 99
    };

int something = (int)DateRange.None;

To get the int value from the display name from:

public static class EnumHelper<T>
{
    public static T GetValueFromName(string name)
    {
        var type = typeof(T);
        if (!type.IsEnum) throw new InvalidOperationException();

        foreach (var field in type.GetFields())
        {
            var attribute = Attribute.GetCustomAttribute(field,
                typeof(DisplayAttribute)) as DisplayAttribute;
            if (attribute != null)
            {
                if (attribute.Name == name)
                {
                    return (T)field.GetValue(null);
                }
            }
            else
            {
                if (field.Name == name)
                    return (T)field.GetValue(null);
            }
        }

        throw new ArgumentOutOfRangeException("name");
    }
}

usage:

var z = (int)EnumHelper<DateRange>.GetValueFromName("Last 7 Days");

There does not seem to be any standard immutable interface for dictionaries, so creating a wrapper seems like the only reasonable option, unfortunately.

Edit: Marc Gravell found the ILookup that I missed - that will allow you to at least avoid creating a new wrapper, although you still need to transform the Dictionary with .ToLookup().

If this is a need constrained to a specific scenario, you might be better off with a more business-logic-oriented interface:

interface IActiveUserCountProvider
{
    int GetMaxForServer(string serverName);
}

Why not:

public class MyClass
{
    private Dictionary<string, int> _myCollection = new Dictionary<string, int>() { { "A", 1 }, { "B", 2 }, { "C", 3 } };

    public IEnumerable<KeyValuePair<string,int>> MyCollection
    {
        get { return _myCollection.AsEnumerable<KeyValuePair<string, int>>(); }
    }
}
3

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge that you have read and understand our privacy policy and code of conduct.

Marcus Vance

Marcus Vance

Cybersecurity & Digital Privacy Researcher

Marcus Vance is a cybersecurity auditor and technology writer dedicated to educating the public about online safety, data privacy regulations, enterprise security, and emerging cyber threats.

Share this article
Twitter Facebook Pinterest