We Keep Coding

Is there any benefit to implementing IDisposable on classes which do not have resources?

In C#, if a class, such as a manager class, does not have resources, is there any benefit to having it : IDisposable?
Simple example:
public interface IBoxManager
{
int addBox(Box b);
}
public class BoxManager : IBoxManager
{
public int addBox(Box b)
{
using(dataContext db = new dataContext()){
db.Boxes.add(b);
db.SaveChanges();
}
return b.id;
}
}
Will there be any benefit in memory use when using BoxManager if it also implements IDisposable? public class BoxManager : IBoxManager , IDisposable
For example:
BoxManager bm = new BoxManager();
bm.add(myBox);
bm.dispose();//is there benefit to doing this?

There are only 2 reasons for implementing IDisposable on a type
The type contains native resources which must be freed when the type is no longer used
The type contains fields of type IDisposable
If neither of these are true then don't implement IDisposable
EDIT
Several people have mentioned that IDisposable is a nice way to implement begin / end or bookended operations. While that's not the original intent of IDisposable it does provide for a very nice pattern.
class Operation {
class Helper : IDisposable {
internal Operation Operation;
public void Dispose() {
Operation.EndOperation();
}
}
public IDisposable BeginOperation() {
...
return new Helper() { Operation = this };
}
private void EndOperation() {
...
}
}
Note: Another interesting way to implement this pattern is with lambdas. Instead of giving an IDisposable back to the user and hoping they don't forget to call Dispose have them give you a lambda in which they can execute the operation and you close out the operation
public void BeginOperation(Action action) {
BeginOperationCore();
try {
action();
} finally {
EndOperation();
}
}

There won't be a scrap of difference between the disposable and non-disposable version if you don't explicitly make use of the Dispose() method.

While your code wouldn't benefit from implementing IDisposable, I can't agree with other opinions here that state that IDisposable is only meant to (directly or indirectly) free native resources. IDisposable can be used whenever the object needs to perform clean up task at the end of it's lifetime span. It's extremely useful together with using.
A very popular example: in ASP.NET MVC Html.BeginForm returns an IDisposable. On creation, the object opens the tag, when Dispose is called it closes it. No native resources involved, yet still a good use of IDisposable.

No, there will be no benefit if you don't do something useful like releasing unmanaged resources that your class might hold in the Dispose method.

One major point of confusion, which may not be applicable in your case but arises often, is what exactly constitutes a "resource". From the perspective of an object, an unmanaged resource is something which an outside entity () is "doing"(*) on its behalf, which that outside entity will keep doing--to the detriment of other entitites--until told to stop. For example, if an object opens a file, the machine which hosts the file may grant that object exclusive access, denying everyone else in the universe a chance to use it unless or until it gets notified that the exclusive access isn't needed anymore.
(*) which could be anything, anywhere; possibly not even on the same computer.
(**) or some way in which the the behavior or state of an outside entity is altered
If an outside entity is doing something on behalf of an object which is abandoned and disappears without first letting the entity know its services are no longer required, the outside entity will have no way of knowing that it should stop acting on behalf of the object which no longer exists. IDisposable provides one way of avoiding this problem by providing a standard means of notifying objects when their services are not required. An object whose services are no longer required will generally not need to ask any further favors from any other entities, and will thus be able to request that any entities that had been acting on its behalf should stop doing so.
To allow for the case where an object gets abandoned without IDisposable.Dispose() having been called first, the system allows objects to register a "failsafe" cleanup method called Finalize(). Because for whatever reason, the creators of C# don't like the term Finalize(), the language requires the use of a construct called a "destructor" which does much the same thing. Note that in general, Finalize() will mask rather than solve problems, and can create problems of its own, so it should be used with extreme caution if at all.
A "managed resource" is typically a name given to an object which implements IDisposable and usually, though not always, implements a finalizer.

No, if there are no (managed or unmanaged) resources there is no need for IDisposable either.
Small caveat: some people use IDisposable to clean up eventhandlers or large memory buffers but
you don't seem to use those
it's a questionable pattern anyway.

From my personal experience (confirmed with discussion and other posts here) I would say, that there could be a situations where your object use massive amount of events, or not massive amount but frequent subscriptions and unsubscription from the event which sometimes leads to that the object is not garbage collected. In this case I in Dispose unsubscribe from all events my object subscribed before.
Hope this helps.

IDisposable is also great if you want to benefit the using () {} syntax.
In a WPF project with ViewModels, I wanted to be able to temporarily disable NotifyPropertyChange events from raising. To be sure other developers will re-enable notifications, I wrote a bit of code to be able to write something like:
using (this.PreventNotifyPropertyChanges()) {
// in this block NotifyPropertyChanged won't be called when changing a property value
}
The syntax looks okay and is easily readable. For it to work, there's a bit of code to write. You will need a simple Disposable object and counter.
public class MyViewModel {
private volatile int notifyPropertylocks = 0; // number of locks
protected void NotifyPropertyChanged(string propertyName) {
if (this.notifyPropertylocks == 0) { // check the counter
this.NotifyPropertyChanged(...);
}
}
protected IDisposable PreventNotifyPropertyChanges() {
return new PropertyChangeLock(this);
}
public class PropertyChangeLock : IDisposable {
MyViewModel vm;
// creating this object will increment the lock counter
public PropertyChangeLock(MyViewModel vm) {
this.vm = vm;
this.vm.notifyPropertylocks += 1;
}
// disposing this object will decrement the lock counter
public void Dispose() {
if (this.vm != null) {
this.vm.notifyPropertylocks -= 1;
this.vm = null;
}
}
}
}
There are no resources to dispose here. I wanted a clean code with a kind of try/finally syntax. The using keyword looks better.

is there any benefit to having it : IDisposable?
It doesn't look so in your specific example, however: there is one good reason to implement IDisposable even if you don’t have any IDisposable fields: your descendants might.
This is one of the big architectural problems of IDisposable highlighted in IDisposable: What your mother never told you about resource deallocation. Basically, unless your class is sealed you need to decide whether your descendants are likely to have IDisposable members. And this isn't something you can realistically predict.
So, if your descendants are likely to have IDisposable members, that might be a good reason to implement IDisposable in the base class.

Short answer would be no. However, you can smartly use the nature of the Dispose() executement at the end of the object lifecycle. One have already gave a nice MVC example (Html.BeginForm)
I would like to point out one important aspect of IDisposable and using() {} statement. At the end of the Using statement Dispose() method is automatically called on the using context object (it must have implemented IDisposable interface, of course).

There one more reason that no one mentioned (though it's debateful if it really worth it):
The convension says that if someone uses a class that implement IDisposable, it must call its Dispose method (either explicitly or via the 'using' statement).
But what happens if V1 of a class (in your public API) didn't need IDisposable, but V2 does? Technically it doesn't break backward compatibility to add an interface to a class, but because of that convension, it is! Because old clients of your code won't call its Dispose method and may cause resources to not get freed.
The (almost) only way to avoid it is to implement IDisposable in any case you suspect that you'll need it in the future, to make sure that your clients always call your Dispose method, that some day may be really needed.
The other (and probably better) way is to implemet the lambda pattern mentioned by JaredPar above in the V2 of the API.

Disposing objects exception

While crawling through sources on the web, I've encountered a lot of boiletplate code which looks the following way:
Suppose we have some public class CustomObject: IDisposable, which has a bunch of methods.
Now, each of those methods has default sanity checks:
if (inputBuffer == null)
throw new ArgumentNullException("inputBuffer");
if (outputBuffer == null)
throw new ArgumentNullException("outputBuffer");
if (inputCount < 0)
throw new ArgumentException("inputCount", "< 0");
But (due to the IDisposable interface implementation) the following check is added to each method:
if (disposed)
throw new ObjectDisposedException("MethodName");
Now - is this a common practice? Should I start reengineering my old disposable classes and implementing these checks?

Now - is this a common practice?
Yes, it is recommended. For almost all members. If you class is IDisposable and any method that needs a resource is called after Dispose() then there is a serious logic error in the calling code. Your task is to signal this.
But note that there might be methods (or properties) that do not critically rely on the owned resource(s), they can be considered safe to call after a Dispose(). For instance an IsOpen function/property. It can simply return false, no need for an exception.
But you should not put the IsDisposed check into Dispose() iteself, the guideline is that it should be safe to call Dispose() multiple times.
Should I start reengineering my old disposable classes and implementing these checks?
In general a good idea. Whether it is worth the effort is up to you.

It depends upon your usage, if in doubt it doesn't hurt to add it.
For a class intended to be used by other programs (e.g., libraries and frameworks) I would always perform this check and throw the correct exception as this will aid other applications in diagnosing errors and makes the class more robust.
For internal classes only intended to be consumed by my application you can skip the check if the error will surface quickly when calling the methods. E.g. if every method in the class used a stream, and that stream was disposed or set to null it would result in an exception pretty quickly.
If the internal class has methods that won't error though, I will always use an explicit check as I don't want a situation where some of the methods still work after the object has been disposed (except for methods that explicitly allow it such as IsDisposed).
Having the explicit check does have the advantage of explicitly documenting which methods are allowed to be called after the object has been disposed. More so if you add a comment at the top of methods that do not call GuardDisposed to state that it is allowed, then any method that doesn't start with GuardDisposed or a comment can be regarded as suspect.
To actually implement the check I prefer to move it to a separate method and use it like an assertion, e.g.
public class Foo
{
private bool disposed;
public void DoSomething ()
{
GuardDisposed ();
}
protected void GuardDisposed ()
{
if (disposed)
throw new ObjectDisposedException (GetType ().Name);
}
}

That code you put inside Dispose() (usually) method in order to be sure that it's not called esplicitly (and/or) not esplicitly more then one time on a single instance.
They use it in case when you do in that method something that can be executed one time (DeleteFile, CloseTransaction...) and any other operation you may think of, that is shouldn't executed twice in your app domain.
So if this is a common practice: I would say, it depends on your app requirements.

Generic function to handle disposing IDisposable objects

I am working on a class that deals with a lot of Sql objects - Connection, Command, DataAdapter, CommandBuilder, etc. There are multiple instances where we have code like this:
if( command != null )
{
command.Dispose();
}
if( dataAdapter != null )
{
dataAdapter.Dispose();
}
etc
I know this is fairly insufficient in terms of duplication, but it has started smelling. The reason why I think it smells is because in some instances the object is also set to null.
if( command != null )
{
command.Dispose();
command = null;
}
I would love to get rid of the duplication if possible. I have come up with this generic method to dispose of an object and set it to null.
private void DisposeObject<TDisposable>( ref TDisposable disposableObject )
where TDisposable : class, IDisposable
{
if( disposableObject != null )
{
disposableObject.Dispose();
disposableObject = null;
}
}
My questions are...
Is this generic function a bad idea?
Is it necessary to set the object to null?
EDIT:
I am aware of the using statement, however I cannot always use it because I have some member variables that need to persist longer than one call. For example the connection and transaction objects.
Thanks!

You should consider if you can use the using statement.
using (SqlCommand command = ...)
{
// ...
}
This ensures that Dispose is called on the command object when control leaves the scope of the using. This has a number of advantages over writing the clean up code yourself as you have done:
It's more concise.
The variable will never be set to null - it is declared and initialized in one statement.
The variable goes out of scope when the object is disposed so you reduce the risk of accidentally trying to access a disposed resource.
It is exception safe.
If you nest using statements then the resources are naturally disposed in the correct order (the reverse order that they were created in).
Is it necessary to set the object to null?
It is not usually necessary to set variables to null when you have finished using them. The important thing is that you call Dispose when you have finished using the resource. If you use the above pattern, it is not only unnecessary to set the variable to null - it will give a compile error:
Cannot assign to 'c' because it is a 'using variable'
One thing to note is that using only works if an object is acquired and disposed in the same method call. You cannot use this pattern is if your resources need to stay alive for the duration of more than one method call. In this case you might want to make your class implement IDisposable and make sure the resources are cleaned up when your Dispose method is called. I this case you will need code like you have written. Setting variables to null is not wrong in this case but it is not important because the garbage collector will clean up the memory correctly anyway. The important thing is to make sure all the resources you own are disposed when your dispose method is called, and you are doing that.
A couple of implementation details:
You should ensure that if your Dispose is called twice that it does not throw an exception. Your utility function handles this case correctly.
You should ensure that the relevant methods on your object raise an ObjectDisposedException if your object has already been disposed.

You should implement IDisposable in the class that owns these fields. See my blog post on the subject. If this doesn't work well, then the class is not following OOP principles, and needs to be refactored.
It is not necessary to set variables to null after disposing them.

If you're objects have a lot of cleanup to do, they might want to track what needs to be deleted in a separate list of disposables, and handle all of them at once. Then at teardown it doesn't need to remember everything that needs to be disposed (nor does it need to check for null, it just looks in the list).
This probably doesn't build, but for expanatory purposes, you could include a RecycleBin in your class. Then the class only needs to dispose the bin.
public class RecycleBin : IDisposable
{
private List<IDisposable> _toDispose = new List<IDisposable>();
public void RememberToDispose(IDisposable disposable)
{
_toDispose.Add(disposable);
}
public void Dispose()
{
foreach(var d in _toDispose)
d.Dispose();
_toDispose.Clear();
}
}

I assume these are fields and not local variables, hence why the using keyword doesn't make sense.
Is this generic function a bad idea?
I think it's a good idea, and I've used a similar function a few times; +1 for making it generic.
Is it necessary to set the object to null?
Technically an object should allow multiple calls to its Dispose method. (For instance, this happens if an object is resurrected during finalization.) In practice, it's up to you whether you trust the authors of these classes or whether you want to code defensively. Personally, I check for null, then set references to null afterwards.
Edit: If this code is inside your own object's Dispose method then failing to set references to null won't leak memory. Instead, it's handy as a defence against double disposal.

I'm going to assume that you are creating the resource in one method, disposing it in another, and using it in one or more others, making the using statement useless for you.
In which case, your method is perfectly fine.
As far the second part of your question ("Is setting it to null necessary?"), the simple answer is "No, but it's not hurting anything".
Most objects hold one resource -- memory, which the Garbage collection deals with freeing, so we don't have to worry about it. Some hold some other resource as well : a file handle, a database connection, etc. For the second category, we must implement IDisposable, to free up that other resource.
Once the Dispose method is called, both categories because the same : they are holding memory. In this case, we can just let the variable go out of scope, dropping the reference to the memory, and allowing to GC to free it eventually -- Or we can force the issue, by setting the variable to null, and explicitly dropping the reference to the memory. We still have to wait until the GC kicks in for the memory to actually be freed, and more than likely the variable will go out of scope anyway, moments after to set it to null, so in the vast majority of cases, it will have no effect at all, but in a few rare cases, it will allow the memory to be freed a few seconds earlier.
However, if your specific case, where you are checking for null to see if you should call Dispose at all, you probably should set it to null, if there is a chance you might call Dispose() twice.

Given that iDisposable does not include any standard way of determining whether an object has been disposed, I like to set things to null when I dispose of them. To be sure, disposing of an object which has already been disposed is harmless, but it's nice to be able to examine an object in a watch window and tell at a glance which fields have been disposed. It's also nice to be able to have code test to ensure that objects which should have been disposed, are (assuming the code adheres to the convention of nulling out variables when disposing of them, and at no other time).

Why don't you use using C# construct? http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/yh598w02.aspx
Setting to null if not required.

Others have recommended the using construct, which I also recommend. However, I'd like to point out that, even if you do need a utility method, it's completely unnecessary to make it generic in the way that you've done. Simply declare your method to take an IDisposable:
private static void DisposeObject( ref IDisposable disposableObject )
{
if( disposableObject != null )
{
disposableObject.Dispose();
disposableObject = null;
}
}

You never need to set variables to null. The whole point of IDisposable.Dispose is to get the object into a state whereby it can hang around in memory harmlessly until the GC finalises it, so you just "dispose and forget".
I'm curious as to why you think you can't use the using statement. Creating an object in one method and disposing it in a different method is a really big code smell in my book, because you soon lose track of what's open where. Better to refactor the code like this:
using(var xxx = whatever()) {
LotsOfProcessing(xxx);
EvenMoreProcessing(xxx);
NowUseItAgain(xxx);
}
I'm sure there is a standard pattern name for this, but I just call it "destroy everything you create, but nothing else".

I answered this in my question and answer here:
Implementing IDisposable (the Disposable Pattern) as a service (class member)
It implemented a simplistic, reusable component that works for any IDisposable member.

Why is 'using' improving C# performances

It seems that in most cases the C# compiler could call Dispose() automatically. Like most cases of the using pattern look like:
public void SomeMethod()
{
...
using (var foo = new Foo())
{
...
}
// Foo isn't use after here (obviously).
...
}
Since foo isn't used (that's a very simple detection) and since its not provided as argument to another method (that's a supposition that applies to many use cases and can be extended), the compiler could automatically and immediately call Dispose() without the developper requiring to do it.
This means that in most cases the using is pretty useless if the compiler does some smart job. IDisposable seem low level enough to me to be taken in account by a compiler.
Now why isn't this done? Wouldn't that improve the performances (if the developpers are... dirty).

A couple of points:
Calling Dispose does not increase performance. IDisposable is designed for scenarios where you are using limited and/or unmanaged resources that cannot be accounted for by the runtime.
There is no clear and obvious mechanism as to how the compiler could treat IDisposable objects in the code. What makes it a candidate for being disposed of automatically and what doesn't? If the instance is (or could) be exposed outside of the method? There's nothing to say that just because I pass an object to another function or class that I want it to be usable beyond the scope of the method
Consider, for example, a factory patter that takes a Stream and deserializes an instance of a class.
public class Foo
{
public static Foo FromStream(System.IO.Stream stream) { ... }
}
And I call it:
Stream stream = new FileStream(path);
Foo foo = Foo.FromStream(stream);
Now, I may or may not want that Stream to be disposed of when the method exits. If Foo's factory reads all of the necessary data from the Stream and no longer needs it, then I would want it to be disposed of. If the Foo object has to hold on to the stream and use it over its lifetime, then I wouldn't want it to be disposed of.
Likewise, what about instances that are retrieved from something other than a constructor, like Control.CreateGraphics(). These instances could exist outside of the code, so the compiler wouldn't dispose of them automatically.
Giving the user control (and providing an idiom like the using block) makes the user's intention clear and makes it much easier to spot places where IDisposable instances are not being properly disposed of. If the compiler were to automatically dispose of some instances, then debugging would be that much more difficult as the developer had to decipher how the automatic disposal rules applied to each and every block of code that used an IDisposable object.
In the end, there are two reasons (by convention) for implementing IDisposable on a type.
You are using an unmanaged resource (meaning you're making a P/Invoke call that returns something like a handle that must be released by a different P/Invoke call)
Your type has instances of IDisposable that should be disposed of when this object's lifetime is over.
In the first case, all such types are supposed to implement a finalizer that calls Dispose and releases all unmanaged resources if the developer fails to do so (this is to prevent memory and handle leaks).

Garbage Collection (while not directly related to IDisposable, is what cleans up unused objects) isn't that simple.
Let me re-word this a little bit. Automatically calling Dispose() isn't that simple. It also won't directly increase performance. More on that a little later.
If you had the following code:
public void DoSomeWork(SqlCommand command)
{
SqlConnection conn = new SqlConnection(connString);
conn.Open();
command.Connection = conn;
// Rest of the work here
}
How would the compiler know when you were done using the conn object? Or if you passed a reference to some other method that was holding on to it?
Explicitly calling Dispose() or using a using block clearly states your intent and forces things to get cleaned up properly.
Now, back to performance. Simply calling Dispose() on an Object doesn't guarantee any performance increase. The Dispose() method is used for "cleaning up" resources when you're done with an Object.
The performance increase can come when using un-managed resources. If a managed object doesn't properly dispose of its un-managed resources, then you have a memory leak. Ugly stuff.
Leaving the determination to call Dispose() up to the compiler would take away that level of clarity and make debugging memory leaks caused by un-managed resources that much more difficult.

You're asking the compiler to perform a semantic analysis of your code. The fact that something isn't explicitly referenced after a certain point in the source does not mean that it isn't being used. If I create a chain of references and pass one out to a method, which may or may not store that reference in a property or some other persistent container, should I really expect the compiler to trace through all of that and figure out what I really meant?
Volatile entities may also be a concern.
Besides, using() {....} is more readable and intuitive, which is worth a lot in terms of maintainability.
As engineers or programmers, we strive to be efficient, but that is rarely the same thing as lazy.

Look at the MSDN Artilce for the C# Using Statement The using statement is just a short cut to keep from doing a try and finally in allot of places. Calling the dispose is not a low level functionality like Garbage Collection.
As you can see using is translated into.
{
Font font1 = new Font("Arial", 10.0f);
try
{
byte charset = font1.GdiCharSet;
}
finally
{
if (font1 != null)
((IDisposable)font1).Dispose();
}
}
How would the compiler know where to put the finally block? Does it call it on Garbage Collection?
Garabage Collection doesn't happen as soon as you leave a method. Read this article on Garbage Collection to understand it better. Only after there are no references to the object. A resource could be tied up for much longer than needed.
The thought that keeps popping into my head is that the compiler should not protect developers who do not clean up there resources. Just because a language is managed doesn't mean that it is going to protect from yourself.

C++ supports this; they call it "stack semantics for reference types". I support adding this to C#, but it will require different syntax (changing the semantics based on whether or not a local variable is passed to another method isn't a good idea).

I think that you are thinking about finalizers. Finalizers use the destructor syntax in c#, and they are called automatically by the garbage collector. Finalizers are only appropriate to use when you are cleaning up unmanaged resources.
Dispose is intended to allow for early cleanup of unmanaged resources (and it can be used to clean managed resources as well).
Detection is actually trickier than it looks. What if you have code like this:
var mydisposable = new...
AMethod(mydisposable);
// (not used again)
It's possible that some code in AMethod holds on to a reference to myDisposable.
Maybe it gets assigned to an instance variable inside of that method
Maybe myDisposable subscribes to an event inside of AMethod (then the event publisher holds a reference to myDisposable)
Maybe another thread is spawned by AMethod
Maybe mydisposable becomes "enclosed" by an anonymous method or lamba expression inside of AMethod.
All of those things make it difficult to know for absolute certain that your object is no longer in use, so Dispose is there to let a developer say "ok, I know that it's safe to run my cleanup code now);
Bear in mind also that dispose doesn't deallocate your object -- only the GC can do that. (The GC does have the magic to understand all of the scenarios that I described, and it knows when to clean up your object, and if you really need code to run when the GC detects no references, you can use a finalizer). Be careful with finalizers, though -- they are only for unmanaged allocations that your class owns.
You can read more about this stuff here:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/magazine/bb985010.aspx
and here: http://www.bluebytesoftware.com/blog/2005/04/08/DGUpdateDisposeFinalizationAndResourceManagement.aspx
If you need unmanaged handle cleanup, read about SafeHandles as well.

It's not the responsibility of the compiler to interpret the scopes in your application and do things like figure out when you no longer need memory. In fact, I'm pretty sure that's an impossible problem to solve, because there's no way for the compiler to know what your program will look like at runtime, no matter how smart it is.
This is why we have the garbage collection. The problem with garbage collection is that it runs on an indeterminate interval, and typically if an object implements IDisposable, the reason is because you want the ability to dispose of it immediately. Like, right now immediately. Constructs such as database connections aren't just disposable because they have some special work to do when they get trashed - it's also because they are scarce.

I seems difficult for the G.C. to know that you won't be using this variable anymore later in the same method. Obviously, if you leave the method, and don't keep a further reference to you variable, the G.C. will dispose it. But using using in you sample, tells the G.C. that you are sure that you will not be using this variable anymore after.

The using statement has nothing to do with performance (unless you consider avoiding resource/memory leaks as performance).
All it does for you is guarantee that the IDisposable.Dispose method is called on the object in question when it goes out of scope, even if an exception has occurred inside the using block.
The Dispose() method is then responsible for releasing any resources used by the object. These are most often unmanaged resources such as files, fonts, images etc, but could also be simple "clean-up" activities on managed objects (not garbage collection however).
Of course if the Dispose() method is implemented badly, the using statement provides zero benefit.

I think the OP is saying "why bother with 'using' when the compiler should be able to work it out magically pretty easily".
I think the OP is saying that
public void SomeMethod()
{
...
var foo = new Foo();
... do stuff with Foo ...
// Foo isn't use after here (obviously).
...
}
should be equivalent to
public void SomeMethod()
{
...
using (var foo = new Foo())
{
... do stuff with Foo ...
}
// Foo isn't use after here (obviously).
...
}
because Foo isn't used again.
The answer of course is that the compiler cannot work it out pretty easily. Garbage Collection (what magically calls "Dispose()" in .NET) is a very complicated field. Just because the symbol isn't being used below that doesn't mean that the variable isn't being used.
Take this example:
public void SomeMethod()
{
...
var foo = new Foo();
foo.DoStuffWith(someRandomObject);
someOtherClass.Method(foo);
// Foo isn't use after here (obviously).
// Or is it??
...
}
In this example, someRandomObject and someOtherClass might both have references to what Foo points out, so if we called Foo.Dispose() it would break them. You say you're just imagining the simple case, but the only 'simple case' where what you're proposing works is the case where you make no method calls from Foo and do not pass Foo or any of its members to anything else - effectively when you don't even use Foo at all in which case you probably have no need to declare it. Even then, you can never be sure that some kind of reflection or event hackery didn't get a reference to Foo just by its very creation, or that Foo didn't hook itself up with something else during its constructor.

In addition to the fine reasons listed above, since the problem can't be solved reliably for all cases, those "easy" cases are something that code analysis tools can and do detect. Let the compiler do stuff deterministically, and let your automatic code analysis tools tell you when you're doing something silly like forgetting to call Dispose.

Is it possible to implement scoped lock in C#?

A common pattern in C++ is to create a class that wraps a lock - the lock is either implicitly taken when object is created, or taken explicitly afterwards. When object goes out of scope, dtor automatically releases the lock.
Is it possible to do this in C#? As far as I understand there are no guarantees on when dtor in C# will run after object goes out of scope.
Clarification:
Any lock in general, spinlock, ReaderWriterLock, whatever.
Calling Dispose myself defeats the purpose of the pattern - to have the lock released as soon as we exit scope - no matter if we called return in the middle, threw exception or whatnot.
Also, as far as I understand using will still only queue object for GC, not destroy it immediately...

To amplify Timothy's answer, the lock statement does create a scoped lock using a monitor. Essentially, this translates into something like this:
lock(_lockKey)
{
// Code under lock
}
// is equivalent to this
Monitor.Enter(_lockKey)
try
{
// Code under lock
}
finally
{
Monitor.Exit(_lockKey)
}
In C# you rarely use the dtor for this kind of pattern (see the using statement/IDisposable). One thing you may notice in the code is that if an async exception happens between the Monitor.Enter and the try, it looks like the monitor will not be released. The JIT actually makes a special guarantee that if a Monitor.Enter immediately precedes a try block the async exception will not happen until the try block thus ensuring the release.

Your understanding regarding using is incorrect, this is a way to have scoped actions happen in a deterministic fashion (no queuing to the GC takes place).
C# supplies the lock keyword which provides an exclusive lock and if you want to have different types (e.g. Read/Write) you'll have to use the using statement.
P.S. This thread may interest you.

It's true that you don't know exactly when the dtor is going to run... but, if you implement the IDisposable interface, and then use either a 'using' block or call 'Dispose()' yourself, you will have a place to put your code.
Question: When you say "lock", do you mean a thread lock so that only one thread at a time can use the object? As in:
lock (_myLockKey) { ... }
Please clarify.

For completeness there is another way to achieve a similar RAII effect without using using and IDisposable. In C# using is usually clearer (see also here for some more thoughts), but in other languages (e.g. Java), or even in C# if using is not appropriate for some reason, it's useful to know.
It's an idiom called "Execute Around" and the idea is that you call a method that does the pre and post stuff (e.g. locking/unlocking your threads, or setting up and committing/ closing your DB connection etc), and you pass into that method a delegate that will implement the operations you want to occur in between.
e.g.:
funkyObj.InOut( delegate{ System.Console.WriteLine( "middle bit" ); } );
Depending on what the InOut method does, the output might be something like:
first bit
middle bit
last bit
As I say, this answer is for completeness only, the previous suggestions of using with IDisposable, as well as the lock keyword, are going to be better 99% of the time.
It's a shame that, while .Net has gone further than many other modern OO languages in this regards (I'm looking at you, Java), it still places the responsibility for RAII to work on the client code (ie the code that uses using), whereas in C++ the destructor will always run at the end of the scope.

Why would you want a scoped lock in the first place? Suppose you have the following code:
lock(obj) {
... some logic goes here
}
If exception has happened inside try inserted in place of lock, this is often means that you have a corrupted state now and other threads will continue to work with corrupted state. It is better to let the program hang to signal about the problem.
Another problem is that try incurs some performance penalty, but this is usually much lesser problem if at all.
Jeffrey Richter specifically advises not to use lock statement.

I've been really bothered by the fact that using is up to the developer to remember to do - at best you get a warning, which most people never bother to promote to an error. So, I've been toying with an idea like this - it forces the client to at least TRY to do things correctly. Fortunately and unfortunately, it's a closure, so the client could still keep a copy of the resource, and try to use it again later - but this code at least tries to push the client in the right direction...
public class MyLockedResource : IDisposable
{
private MyLockedResource()
{
Console.WriteLine("initialize");
}
public void Dispose()
{
Console.WriteLine("dispose");
}
public delegate void RAII(MyLockedResource resource);
static public void Use(RAII raii)
{
using (MyLockedResource resource = new MyLockedResource())
{
raii(resource);
}
}
public void test()
{
Console.WriteLine("test");
}
}
Good usage:
MyLockedResource.Use(delegate(MyLockedResource resource)
{
resource.test();
});
Bad usage! (Unfortunately, this can't be prevented...)
MyLockedResource res = null;
MyLockedResource.Use(delegate(MyLockedResource resource)
{
resource.test();
res = resource;
res.test();
});
res.test();