What is the purpose of : public static DateTime ToDateTime(DateTime value) in the .NET Framework?

The name of the pictureThe name of the pictureThe name of the pictureClash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP











up vote
10
down vote

favorite
1












I am maintaining an existing project, and I found this line of code:



Datetime someDate = ....;
var anotherDateTime = Convert.ToDateTime(someDate);


At first, I expected that someDate is converted to a string by calling the ToString method on it implicitly, but I was wrong. As I pressed F12 on the method I see the definition of that method in the System.Convert class, which is like the following:



// Summary: Returns the specified System.DateTime object; no actual conversion is performed.
// Parameters:
// value: A date and time value.
// Returns:
// value is returned unchanged.
public static DateTime ToDateTime(DateTime value);


First Why does the .NET framework have a method like this in the first place, as the documentation says that this method does Nothing?
Second While I am refactoring the code, can I safely remove the call for this method without affecting the behavior?






c# .net datetime







share|improve this question



















  • 3




    Common in early .NET versions to implement late binding, before Linq, EF and dynamic made the job easier. Mapping data from a dbase table row for example, the dbase provider might supply a DateTime based on the column type. Omitting that Convert method would make such code too painful.
    – Hans Passant
    2 hours ago














up vote
10
down vote

favorite
1












I am maintaining an existing project, and I found this line of code:



Datetime someDate = ....;
var anotherDateTime = Convert.ToDateTime(someDate);


At first, I expected that someDate is converted to a string by calling the ToString method on it implicitly, but I was wrong. As I pressed F12 on the method I see the definition of that method in the System.Convert class, which is like the following:



// Summary: Returns the specified System.DateTime object; no actual conversion is performed.
// Parameters:
// value: A date and time value.
// Returns:
// value is returned unchanged.
public static DateTime ToDateTime(DateTime value);


First Why does the .NET framework have a method like this in the first place, as the documentation says that this method does Nothing?
Second While I am refactoring the code, can I safely remove the call for this method without affecting the behavior?






c# .net datetime







share|improve this question



















  • 3




    Common in early .NET versions to implement late binding, before Linq, EF and dynamic made the job easier. Mapping data from a dbase table row for example, the dbase provider might supply a DateTime based on the column type. Omitting that Convert method would make such code too painful.
    – Hans Passant
    2 hours ago












up vote
10
down vote

favorite
1









up vote
10
down vote

favorite
1






1





I am maintaining an existing project, and I found this line of code:



Datetime someDate = ....;
var anotherDateTime = Convert.ToDateTime(someDate);


At first, I expected that someDate is converted to a string by calling the ToString method on it implicitly, but I was wrong. As I pressed F12 on the method I see the definition of that method in the System.Convert class, which is like the following:



// Summary: Returns the specified System.DateTime object; no actual conversion is performed.
// Parameters:
// value: A date and time value.
// Returns:
// value is returned unchanged.
public static DateTime ToDateTime(DateTime value);


First Why does the .NET framework have a method like this in the first place, as the documentation says that this method does Nothing?
Second While I am refactoring the code, can I safely remove the call for this method without affecting the behavior?






c# .net datetime







share|improve this question















I am maintaining an existing project, and I found this line of code:



Datetime someDate = ....;
var anotherDateTime = Convert.ToDateTime(someDate);


At first, I expected that someDate is converted to a string by calling the ToString method on it implicitly, but I was wrong. As I pressed F12 on the method I see the definition of that method in the System.Convert class, which is like the following:



// Summary: Returns the specified System.DateTime object; no actual conversion is performed.
// Parameters:
// value: A date and time value.
// Returns:
// value is returned unchanged.
public static DateTime ToDateTime(DateTime value);


First Why does the .NET framework have a method like this in the first place, as the documentation says that this method does Nothing?
Second While I am refactoring the code, can I safely remove the call for this method without affecting the behavior?






c# .net datetime




c# .net datetime






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited 8 mins ago









Boann

36k1285116




36k1285116










asked 3 hours ago









Hakam Fostok

4,83383561




4,83383561







  • 3




    Common in early .NET versions to implement late binding, before Linq, EF and dynamic made the job easier. Mapping data from a dbase table row for example, the dbase provider might supply a DateTime based on the column type. Omitting that Convert method would make such code too painful.
    – Hans Passant
    2 hours ago












  • 3




    Common in early .NET versions to implement late binding, before Linq, EF and dynamic made the job easier. Mapping data from a dbase table row for example, the dbase provider might supply a DateTime based on the column type. Omitting that Convert method would make such code too painful.
    – Hans Passant
    2 hours ago







3




3




Common in early .NET versions to implement late binding, before Linq, EF and dynamic made the job easier. Mapping data from a dbase table row for example, the dbase provider might supply a DateTime based on the column type. Omitting that Convert method would make such code too painful.
– Hans Passant
2 hours ago




Common in early .NET versions to implement late binding, before Linq, EF and dynamic made the job easier. Mapping data from a dbase table row for example, the dbase provider might supply a DateTime based on the column type. Omitting that Convert method would make such code too painful.
– Hans Passant
2 hours ago












4 Answers
4






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
9
down vote



accepted










Yes, you can remove it. It is completely redundant. As for why: I guess someone thought it was a good idea to avoid people accidentally calling Convert.ToDateTime(object) (which would be implicit) - which would involve a box, type-check and unbox. Frankly that seems like a silly reason to me, along the lines of "write bad code, get bad results".






share|improve this answer



























    up vote
    4
    down vote













    It is because the Convert class is intented to work with types that implement the IConvertible interface.



    This interface contains methods to convert types to decimal, byte, DateTime etc. Convert.ToDateTime(DateTime d) isn't the only method that does "nothing". It exists for any type implementing IConvertible as well, e.g. Convert.ToChar(char c). It just comes from the fact that all of these types implement IConvertible.



    You can read more about this in the comments of the source code of the Convert class.






    share|improve this answer





























      up vote
      3
      down vote













      As you can see in the current BCL sources:



      public static DateTime ToDateTime(DateTime value) 
       return value;



      there is no actual conversion, so you can safely remove those calls.






      share|improve this answer



























        up vote
        0
        down vote













        Though I agree with answers here so far, I guess there is also another aspect to it, which is code generation. In the early days of .NET, code generation was very often done using CodeDOM (and sometimes still is, e.g. with the WinForms Designer). CodeDOM does not really track the type of variables as this type might not be known at the time of code generation (for example if the type is also generated). Therefore, it is a lot easier to just generate a reference to a method ToDate and have the compiler figure out which of the overloads to use. Given that these methods are non-virtual, they can be inlined and there is not even a performance penalty.



        That said, I am pretty sure the WinForms Designer code generator does not use this method, at least not in .NET 2.0, the earliest version that I have worked with.






        share|improve this answer




















          Your Answer





          StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
          StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function ()
          StackExchange.using("snippets", function ()
          StackExchange.snippets.init();
          );
          );
          , "code-snippets");

          StackExchange.ready(function()
          var channelOptions =
          tags: "".split(" "),
          id: "1"
          ;
          initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

          StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
          // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
          if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
          StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
          createEditor();
          );

          else
          createEditor();

          );

          function createEditor()
          StackExchange.prepareEditor(
          heartbeatType: 'answer',
          convertImagesToLinks: true,
          noModals: false,
          showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
          reputationToPostImages: 10,
          bindNavPrevention: true,
          postfix: "",
          onDemand: true,
          discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
          ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
          );



          );













           

          draft saved


          draft discarded


















          StackExchange.ready(
          function ()
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f52851652%2fwhat-is-the-purpose-of-public-static-datetime-todatetimedatetime-value-in-th%23new-answer', 'question_page');

          );

          Post as a guest

















          4 Answers
          4






          active

          oldest

          votes








          4 Answers
          4






          active

          oldest

          votes









          active

          oldest

          votes






          active

          oldest

          votes








          up vote
          9
          down vote



          accepted










          Yes, you can remove it. It is completely redundant. As for why: I guess someone thought it was a good idea to avoid people accidentally calling Convert.ToDateTime(object) (which would be implicit) - which would involve a box, type-check and unbox. Frankly that seems like a silly reason to me, along the lines of "write bad code, get bad results".






          share|improve this answer
























            up vote
            9
            down vote



            accepted










            Yes, you can remove it. It is completely redundant. As for why: I guess someone thought it was a good idea to avoid people accidentally calling Convert.ToDateTime(object) (which would be implicit) - which would involve a box, type-check and unbox. Frankly that seems like a silly reason to me, along the lines of "write bad code, get bad results".






            share|improve this answer






















              up vote
              9
              down vote



              accepted







              up vote
              9
              down vote



              accepted






              Yes, you can remove it. It is completely redundant. As for why: I guess someone thought it was a good idea to avoid people accidentally calling Convert.ToDateTime(object) (which would be implicit) - which would involve a box, type-check and unbox. Frankly that seems like a silly reason to me, along the lines of "write bad code, get bad results".






              share|improve this answer












              Yes, you can remove it. It is completely redundant. As for why: I guess someone thought it was a good idea to avoid people accidentally calling Convert.ToDateTime(object) (which would be implicit) - which would involve a box, type-check and unbox. Frankly that seems like a silly reason to me, along the lines of "write bad code, get bad results".







              share|improve this answer












              share|improve this answer



              share|improve this answer










              answered 3 hours ago









              Marc Gravell♦

              763k18921012520




              763k18921012520






















                  up vote
                  4
                  down vote













                  It is because the Convert class is intented to work with types that implement the IConvertible interface.



                  This interface contains methods to convert types to decimal, byte, DateTime etc. Convert.ToDateTime(DateTime d) isn't the only method that does "nothing". It exists for any type implementing IConvertible as well, e.g. Convert.ToChar(char c). It just comes from the fact that all of these types implement IConvertible.



                  You can read more about this in the comments of the source code of the Convert class.






                  share|improve this answer


























                    up vote
                    4
                    down vote













                    It is because the Convert class is intented to work with types that implement the IConvertible interface.



                    This interface contains methods to convert types to decimal, byte, DateTime etc. Convert.ToDateTime(DateTime d) isn't the only method that does "nothing". It exists for any type implementing IConvertible as well, e.g. Convert.ToChar(char c). It just comes from the fact that all of these types implement IConvertible.



                    You can read more about this in the comments of the source code of the Convert class.






                    share|improve this answer
























                      up vote
                      4
                      down vote










                      up vote
                      4
                      down vote









                      It is because the Convert class is intented to work with types that implement the IConvertible interface.



                      This interface contains methods to convert types to decimal, byte, DateTime etc. Convert.ToDateTime(DateTime d) isn't the only method that does "nothing". It exists for any type implementing IConvertible as well, e.g. Convert.ToChar(char c). It just comes from the fact that all of these types implement IConvertible.



                      You can read more about this in the comments of the source code of the Convert class.






                      share|improve this answer














                      It is because the Convert class is intented to work with types that implement the IConvertible interface.



                      This interface contains methods to convert types to decimal, byte, DateTime etc. Convert.ToDateTime(DateTime d) isn't the only method that does "nothing". It exists for any type implementing IConvertible as well, e.g. Convert.ToChar(char c). It just comes from the fact that all of these types implement IConvertible.



                      You can read more about this in the comments of the source code of the Convert class.







                      share|improve this answer














                      share|improve this answer



                      share|improve this answer








                      edited 2 hours ago

























                      answered 2 hours ago









                      Adrian

                      8,56811436




                      8,56811436




















                          up vote
                          3
                          down vote













                          As you can see in the current BCL sources:



                          public static DateTime ToDateTime(DateTime value) 
                           return value;



                          there is no actual conversion, so you can safely remove those calls.






                          share|improve this answer
























                            up vote
                            3
                            down vote













                            As you can see in the current BCL sources:



                            public static DateTime ToDateTime(DateTime value) 
                             return value;



                            there is no actual conversion, so you can safely remove those calls.






                            share|improve this answer






















                              up vote
                              3
                              down vote










                              up vote
                              3
                              down vote









                              As you can see in the current BCL sources:



                              public static DateTime ToDateTime(DateTime value) 
                               return value;



                              there is no actual conversion, so you can safely remove those calls.






                              share|improve this answer












                              As you can see in the current BCL sources:



                              public static DateTime ToDateTime(DateTime value) 
                               return value;



                              there is no actual conversion, so you can safely remove those calls.







                              share|improve this answer












                              share|improve this answer



                              share|improve this answer










                              answered 2 hours ago









                              dymanoid

                              6,83921945




                              6,83921945




















                                  up vote
                                  0
                                  down vote













                                  Though I agree with answers here so far, I guess there is also another aspect to it, which is code generation. In the early days of .NET, code generation was very often done using CodeDOM (and sometimes still is, e.g. with the WinForms Designer). CodeDOM does not really track the type of variables as this type might not be known at the time of code generation (for example if the type is also generated). Therefore, it is a lot easier to just generate a reference to a method ToDate and have the compiler figure out which of the overloads to use. Given that these methods are non-virtual, they can be inlined and there is not even a performance penalty.



                                  That said, I am pretty sure the WinForms Designer code generator does not use this method, at least not in .NET 2.0, the earliest version that I have worked with.






                                  share|improve this answer
























                                    up vote
                                    0
                                    down vote













                                    Though I agree with answers here so far, I guess there is also another aspect to it, which is code generation. In the early days of .NET, code generation was very often done using CodeDOM (and sometimes still is, e.g. with the WinForms Designer). CodeDOM does not really track the type of variables as this type might not be known at the time of code generation (for example if the type is also generated). Therefore, it is a lot easier to just generate a reference to a method ToDate and have the compiler figure out which of the overloads to use. Given that these methods are non-virtual, they can be inlined and there is not even a performance penalty.



                                    That said, I am pretty sure the WinForms Designer code generator does not use this method, at least not in .NET 2.0, the earliest version that I have worked with.






                                    share|improve this answer






















                                      up vote
                                      0
                                      down vote










                                      up vote
                                      0
                                      down vote









                                      Though I agree with answers here so far, I guess there is also another aspect to it, which is code generation. In the early days of .NET, code generation was very often done using CodeDOM (and sometimes still is, e.g. with the WinForms Designer). CodeDOM does not really track the type of variables as this type might not be known at the time of code generation (for example if the type is also generated). Therefore, it is a lot easier to just generate a reference to a method ToDate and have the compiler figure out which of the overloads to use. Given that these methods are non-virtual, they can be inlined and there is not even a performance penalty.



                                      That said, I am pretty sure the WinForms Designer code generator does not use this method, at least not in .NET 2.0, the earliest version that I have worked with.






                                      share|improve this answer












                                      Though I agree with answers here so far, I guess there is also another aspect to it, which is code generation. In the early days of .NET, code generation was very often done using CodeDOM (and sometimes still is, e.g. with the WinForms Designer). CodeDOM does not really track the type of variables as this type might not be known at the time of code generation (for example if the type is also generated). Therefore, it is a lot easier to just generate a reference to a method ToDate and have the compiler figure out which of the overloads to use. Given that these methods are non-virtual, they can be inlined and there is not even a performance penalty.



                                      That said, I am pretty sure the WinForms Designer code generator does not use this method, at least not in .NET 2.0, the earliest version that I have worked with.







                                      share|improve this answer












                                      share|improve this answer



                                      share|improve this answer










                                      answered 2 hours ago









                                      Georg

                                      3,4011232




                                      3,4011232



























                                           

                                          draft saved


                                          draft discarded















































                                           


                                          draft saved


                                          draft discarded














                                          StackExchange.ready(
                                          function ()
                                          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f52851652%2fwhat-is-the-purpose-of-public-static-datetime-todatetimedatetime-value-in-th%23new-answer', 'question_page');

                                          );

                                          Post as a guest
































































                                          Comments

                                          Post a Comment

                                          Popular posts from this blog

                                          What does second last employer means? [closed]

                                          Image
                                          Clash Royale CLAN TAG #URR8PPP .everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0; up vote -3 down vote favorite Say, for example I have worked in the following companies, Company A => 2010 - 2011 Company B => 2011 - 2012 Company C => 2012 - Till Date Company D => Have offer Now assume Company D is asking to submit documents from my second last employer. So from the list of companies given, which company would be qualified as second last employer? software-industry employer share | improve this question asked Aug 10 '14 at 5:16 Rajaprabhu Aravindasamy 559 1 6 13 closed as off-topic by Jim G., jmort253 ♦ Aug 11 '14 at 1:58 This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason: "Questions seeking advice on company-specific regulations, agreements, or policies should be directed to your manager or HR department. Questions that address...
                                          Read more

                                          List of Gilmore Girls characters

                                          Image
                                          The season three cast—(Back row): Lane, Michel, Paris, Emily, Richard, Sookie, Miss Patty, Kirk; Front row: Jess, Luke, Lorelai, Rory, Dean This is a list of characters for the comedy-drama television series Gilmore Girls . Contents 1 Main characters 1.1 Lorelai Gilmore 1.2 Rory Gilmore 1.3 Sookie St. James 1.4 Lane Kim 1.5 Michel Gerard 1.6 Luke Danes 1.7 Emily Gilmore 1.8 Richard Gilmore 1.9 Paris Geller 1.10 Dean Forester 1.11 Jess Mariano 1.12 Kirk Gleason 1.13 Jason Stiles 1.14 Logan Huntzberger 2 Major recurring characters 2.1 Christopher Hayden 2.2 Jackson Belleville 2.3 Mrs. Kim 2.4 Tristin DuGray 2.5 Max Medina 2.6 Taylor Doose 2.7 Dave Rygalski 2.8 Marty 3 Recurring characters 3.1 Stars Hollow 3.2 Chilton 3.3 Yale 3.4 Other 4 Notable guest stars 5 Unseen characters 6 Notes 7 References Main characters Actor Character Appearances Season 1 Season 2 Season 3 Season 4 Season 5 Season 6 Season 7 A Year in the Life Lauren Graham Lorelai Gilmore...
                                          Read more

                                          Confectionery

                                          Image
                                          Prepared foods made with a lot of sugar or other cabohydrates "Sweetmeat" redirects here. For the racehorse, see Sweetmeat (horse). Not to be confused with Sweetbread. This Kransekake is a traditional Scandinavian baker's confection. Confectionery is the art of making confections , which are food items that are rich in sugar and carbohydrates. Exact definitions are difficult. [1] In general, though, confectionery is divided into two broad and somewhat overlapping categories, bakers' confections and sugar confections. [2] Bakers' confectionery, also called flour confections , includes principally sweet pastries, cakes, and similar baked goods. Sugar confectionery includes candies ( sweets in British English), candied nuts, chocolates, chewing gum, bubble gum, pastillage, and other confections that are made primarily of sugar. In some cases, chocolate confections (confections made of chocolate) are treated as a separate category, as are sugar-free versions of ...
                                          Read more