'class field' might be more in place than 'static field'

[DawMuld]

_A field is a variable that is associated with a class or with an instance of a class.

A field declared with the static modifier defines a static field. A static field identifies exactly one storage location. No matter how many instances of a class are created, there's only ever one copy of a static field.

A field declared without the static modifier defines an instance field. Every instance of a class contains a separate copy of all the instance fields of that class._

I guess that a static modifier defines a class field, as the absence of this modifier makes it an instance field and the article seems to intent to explain the differences between variables associated with a class or with an instance. Also, the statement of a static modifier making a static field seems quite redundant

---

Document Details

⚠ Do not edit this section. It is required for docs.microsoft.com ➟ GitHub issue linking.

• ID: 3148b5e9-550e-67c9-eb13-907cb78f7fe7
• Version Independent ID: c723989f-2ff6-389d-dcb4-f55d97d14501
• Content: The building blocks of C# programs'
• Content Source: docs/csharp/tour-of-csharp/program-building-blocks.md
• Product: dotnet-csharp
• Technology: csharp-get-started
• GitHub Login: @BillWagner
• Microsoft Alias: wiwagn

---

Associated WorkItem - 447343

[Youssef1313]

I guess that a static modifier defines a class field

I think the term "class field" is ambiguous, it could be an instance field or a static field.

The article seems accurate using "instance field" and "static field" terms.

If I misunderstood the improvement you're trying to describe, could you make it more clear?

---

One improvement I can see to the article is regarding static generic fields. I don't think it's a one storage location as the article claims.

@BillWagner @pkulikov Thoughts?

[BillWagner]

Thanks for adding these notes @DawMuld I've added this to the list of issues to address.

I'm not sure how detailed we want to get on generic fields in this article. Yes, it's true that different closed generic types do have a different storage location for static generic fields. But, it's also true that there's only one storage location for each closed generic type. That's a bit detailed for this overview.

Overall, the fixes should be more clear and consistent with the terms "instance field", "static field", We should avoid the term "class field" for several reasons:

• A struct can declare a "static field".
• It is ambiguous: is the type of the field a class type, or is the field a static field?

[BillWagner]

Let's continue to use the term "static field".

We should reword the sentence so that different closed generic types have distinct storage locations for each closed generic type.