We Keep Coding

lifetime of local variable inside an Action in c# [duplicate]

What is a closure? Do we have them in .NET?
If they do exist in .NET, could you please provide a code snippet (preferably in C#) explaining it?

I have an article on this very topic. (It has lots of examples.)
In essence, a closure is a block of code which can be executed at a later time, but which maintains the environment in which it was first created - i.e. it can still use the local variables etc of the method which created it, even after that method has finished executing.
The general feature of closures is implemented in C# by anonymous methods and lambda expressions.
Here's an example using an anonymous method:
using System;
class Test
{
static void Main()
{
Action action = CreateAction();
action();
action();
}
static Action CreateAction()
{
int counter = 0;
return delegate
{
// Yes, it could be done in one statement;
// but it is clearer like this.
counter++;
Console.WriteLine("counter={0}", counter);
};
}
}
Output:
counter=1
counter=2
Here we can see that the action returned by CreateAction still has access to the counter variable, and can indeed increment it, even though CreateAction itself has finished.

If you are interested in seeing how C# implements Closure read "I know the answer (its 42) blog"
The compiler generates a class in the background to encapsulate the anoymous method and the variable j
[CompilerGenerated]
private sealed class <>c__DisplayClass2
{
public <>c__DisplayClass2();
public void <fillFunc>b__0()
{
Console.Write("{0} ", this.j);
}
public int j;
}
for the function:
static void fillFunc(int count) {
for (int i = 0; i < count; i++)
{
int j = i;
funcArr[i] = delegate()
{
Console.Write("{0} ", j);
};
}
}
Turning it into:
private static void fillFunc(int count)
{
for (int i = 0; i < count; i++)
{
Program.<>c__DisplayClass1 class1 = new Program.<>c__DisplayClass1();
class1.j = i;
Program.funcArr[i] = new Func(class1.<fillFunc>b__0);
}
}

Closures are functional values that hold onto variable values from their original scope. C# can use them in the form of anonymous delegates.
For a very simple example, take this C# code:
delegate int testDel();
static void Main(string[] args)
{
int foo = 4;
testDel myClosure = delegate()
{
return foo;
};
int bar = myClosure();
}
At the end of it, bar will be set to 4, and the myClosure delegate can be passed around to be used elsewhere in the program.
Closures can be used for a lot of useful things, like delayed execution or to simplify interfaces - LINQ is mainly built using closures. The most immediate way it comes in handy for most developers is adding event handlers to dynamically created controls - you can use closures to add behavior when the control is instantiated, rather than storing data elsewhere.

Func<int, int> GetMultiplier(int a)
{
return delegate(int b) { return a * b; } ;
}
//...
var fn2 = GetMultiplier(2);
var fn3 = GetMultiplier(3);
Console.WriteLine(fn2(2)); //outputs 4
Console.WriteLine(fn2(3)); //outputs 6
Console.WriteLine(fn3(2)); //outputs 6
Console.WriteLine(fn3(3)); //outputs 9
A closure is an anonymous function passed outside of the function in which it is created.
It maintains any variables from the function in which it is created that it uses.

A closure is when a function is defined inside another function (or method) and it uses the variables from the parent method. This use of variables which are located in a method and wrapped in a function defined within it, is called a closure.
Mark Seemann has some interesting examples of closures in his blog post where he does a parallel between oop and functional programming.
And to make it more detailed
var workingDirectory = new DirectoryInfo(Environment.CurrentDirectory);//when this variable
Func<int, string> read = id =>
{
var path = Path.Combine(workingDirectory.FullName, id + ".txt");//is used inside this function
return File.ReadAllText(path);
};//the entire process is called a closure.

Here is a contrived example for C# which I created from similar code in JavaScript:
public delegate T Iterator<T>() where T : class;
public Iterator<T> CreateIterator<T>(IList<T> x) where T : class
{
var i = 0;
return delegate { return (i < x.Count) ? x[i++] : null; };
}
So, here is some code that shows how to use the above code...
var iterator = CreateIterator(new string[3] { "Foo", "Bar", "Baz"});
// So, although CreateIterator() has been called and returned, the variable
// "i" within CreateIterator() will live on because of a closure created
// within that method, so that every time the anonymous delegate returned
// from it is called (by calling iterator()) it's value will increment.
string currentString;
currentString = iterator(); // currentString is now "Foo"
currentString = iterator(); // currentString is now "Bar"
currentString = iterator(); // currentString is now "Baz"
currentString = iterator(); // currentString is now null
Hope that is somewhat helpful.

Closures are chunks of code that reference a variable outside themselves, (from below them on the stack), that might be called or executed later, (like when an event or delegate is defined, and could get called at some indefinite future point in time)... Because the outside variable that the chunk of code references may gone out of scope (and would otherwise have been lost), the fact that it is referenced by the chunk of code (called a closure) tells the runtime to "hold" that variable in scope until it is no longer needed by the closure chunk of code...

Basically closure is a block of code that you can pass as an argument to a function. C# supports closures in form of anonymous delegates.
Here is a simple example:
List.Find method can accept and execute piece of code (closure) to find list's item.
// Passing a block of code as a function argument
List<int> ints = new List<int> {1, 2, 3};
ints.Find(delegate(int value) { return value == 1; });
Using C#3.0 syntax we can write this as:
ints.Find(value => value == 1);

If you write an inline anonymous method (C#2) or (preferably) a Lambda expression (C#3+), an actual method is still being created. If that code is using an outer-scope local variable - you still need to pass that variable to the method somehow.
e.g. take this Linq Where clause (which is a simple extension method which passes a lambda expression):
var i = 0;
var items = new List<string>
{
"Hello","World"
};
var filtered = items.Where(x =>
// this is a predicate, i.e. a Func<T, bool> written as a lambda expression
// which is still a method actually being created for you in compile time
{
i++;
return true;
});
if you want to use i in that lambda expression, you have to pass it to that created method.
So the first question that arises is: should it be passed by value or reference?
Pass by reference is (I guess) more preferable as you get read/write access to that variable (and this is what C# does; I guess the team in Microsoft weighed the pros and cons and went with by-reference; According to Jon Skeet's article, Java went with by-value).
But then another question arises: Where to allocate that i?
Should it actually/naturally be allocated on the stack?
Well, if you allocate it on the stack and pass it by reference, there can be situations where it outlives it's own stack frame. Take this example:
static void Main(string[] args)
{
Outlive();
var list = whereItems.ToList();
Console.ReadLine();
}
static IEnumerable<string> whereItems;
static void Outlive()
{
var i = 0;
var items = new List<string>
{
"Hello","World"
};
whereItems = items.Where(x =>
{
i++;
Console.WriteLine(i);
return true;
});
}
The lambda expression (in the Where clause) again creates a method which refers to an i. If i is allocated on the stack of Outlive, then by the time you enumerate the whereItems, the i used in the generated method will point to the i of Outlive, i.e. to a place in the stack that is no longer accessible.
Ok, so we need it on the heap then.
So what the C# compiler does to support this inline anonymous/lambda, is use what is called "Closures": It creates a class on the Heap called (rather poorly) DisplayClass which has a field containing the i, and the Function that actually uses it.
Something that would be equivalent to this (you can see the IL generated using ILSpy or ILDASM):
class <>c_DisplayClass1
{
public int i;
public bool <GetFunc>b__0()
{
this.i++;
Console.WriteLine(i);
return true;
}
}
It instantiates that class in your local scope, and replaces any code relating to i or the lambda expression with that closure instance. So - anytime you are using the i in your "local scope" code where i was defined, you are actually using that DisplayClass instance field.
So if I would change the "local" i in the main method, it will actually change _DisplayClass.i ;
i.e.
var i = 0;
var items = new List<string>
{
"Hello","World"
};
var filtered = items.Where(x =>
{
i++;
return true;
});
filtered.ToList(); // will enumerate filtered, i = 2
i = 10; // i will be overwriten with 10
filtered.ToList(); // will enumerate filtered again, i = 12
Console.WriteLine(i); // should print out 12
it will print out 12, as "i = 10" goes to that dispalyclass field and changes it just before the 2nd enumeration.
A good source on the topic is this Bart De Smet Pluralsight module (requires registration) (also ignore his erroneous use of the term "Hoisting" - what (I think) he means is that the local variable (i.e. i) is changed to refer to the the new DisplayClass field).
In other news, there seems to be some misconception that "Closures" are related to loops - as I understand "Closures" are NOT a concept related to loops, but rather to anonymous methods / lambda expressions use of local scoped variables - although some trick questions use loops to demonstrate it.

A closure aims to simplify functional thinking, and it allows the runtime to manage
state, releasing extra complexity for the developer. A closure is a first-class function
with free variables that are bound in the lexical environment. Behind these buzzwords
hides a simple concept: closures are a more convenient way to give functions access
to local state and to pass data into background operations. They are special functions
that carry an implicit binding to all the nonlocal variables (also called free variables or
up-values) referenced. Moreover, a closure allows a function to access one or more nonlocal variables even when invoked outside its immediate lexical scope, and the body
of this special function can transport these free variables as a single entity, defined in
its enclosing scope. More importantly, a closure encapsulates behavior and passes it
around like any other object, granting access to the context in which the closure was
created, reading, and updating these values.

Just out of the blue,a simple and more understanding answer from the book C# 7.0 nutshell.
Pre-requisit you should know :A lambda expression can reference the local variables and parameters of the method
in which it’s defined (outer variables).
static void Main()
{
int factor = 2;
//Here factor is the variable that takes part in lambda expression.
Func<int, int> multiplier = n => n * factor;
Console.WriteLine (multiplier (3)); // 6
}
Real part:Outer variables referenced by a lambda expression are called captured variables. A lambda expression that captures variables is called a closure.
Last Point to be noted:Captured variables are evaluated when the delegate is actually invoked, not when the variables were captured:
int factor = 2;
Func<int, int> multiplier = n => n * factor;
factor = 10;
Console.WriteLine (multiplier (3)); // 30

A closure is a function, defined within a function, that can access the local variables of it as well as its parent.
public string GetByName(string name)
{
List<things> theThings = new List<things>();
return theThings.Find<things>(t => t.Name == name)[0];
}
so the function inside the find method.
t => t.Name == name
can access the variables inside its scope, t, and the variable name which is in its parents scope. Even though it is executed by the find method as a delegate, from another scope all together.

spread syntax in c#? [duplicate]

I know this is a basic question, but I couldn't find an answer.
Why use it? if you write a function or a method that's using it, when you remove it the code will still work perfectly, 100% as without it. E.g:
With params:
static public int addTwoEach(params int[] args)
{
int sum = 0;
foreach (var item in args)
sum += item + 2;
return sum;
}
Without params:
static public int addTwoEach(int[] args)
{
int sum = 0;
foreach (var item in args)
sum += item + 2;
return sum;
}

With params you can call your method like this:
addTwoEach(1, 2, 3, 4, 5);
Without params, you can’t.
Additionally, you can call the method with an array as a parameter in both cases:
addTwoEach(new int[] { 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 });
That is, params allows you to use a shortcut when calling the method.
Unrelated, you can drastically shorten your method:
public static int addTwoEach(params int[] args)
{
return args.Sum() + 2 * args.Length;
}

Using params allows you to call the function with no arguments. Without params:
static public int addTwoEach(int[] args)
{
int sum = 0;
foreach (var item in args)
{
sum += item + 2;
}
return sum;
}
addtwoEach(); // throws an error
Compare with params:
static public int addTwoEach(params int[] args)
{
int sum = 0;
foreach (var item in args)
{
sum += item + 2;
}
return sum;
}
addtwoEach(); // returns 0
Generally, you can use params when the number of arguments can vary from 0 to infinity, and use an array when numbers of arguments vary from 1 to infinity.

It allows you to add as many base type parameters in your call as you like.
addTwoEach(10, 2, 4, 6)
whereas with the second form you have to use an array as parameter
addTwoEach(new int[] {10,2,4,6})

One danger with params Keyword is, if after Calls to the Method have been coded,
someone accidentally / intentionally removes one/more required Parameters from the Method Signature,
and
one/more required Parameters immediately prior to the params Parameter prior to the Signature change were Type-Compatible with the params Parameter,
those Calls will continue to compile with one/more Expressions previously intended for required Parameters being treated as the optional params Parameter. I just ran into the worst possible case of this: the params Parameter was of Type object[].
This is noteworthy because developers are used to the compiler slapping their wrists with the much, much more common scenario where Parameters are removed from a Method with all required Parameters (because the # of Parameters expected would change).
For me, it's not worth the shortcut. (Type)[] without params will work with 0 to infinity # of Parameters without needing Overrides. Worst case is you'll have to add a , new (Type) [] {} to Calls where it doesn't apply.
Btw, imho, the safest (and most readable practice) is to:
pass via Named Parameters (which we can now do even in C# ~2 decades after we could in VB ;P), because:
1.1. it's the only way that guarantees prevention of unintended values passed to Parameters after Parameter order, Compatible-Type and/or count change after Calls have been coded,
1.2. it reduces those chances after a Parameter meaning change, because the likely new identifier name reflecting the new meaning is right next to the value being passed to it,
1.3. it avoids having to count commas and jump back & forth from Call to Signature to see what Expression is being passed for what Parameter, and
1.3.1. By the way, this reason alone should be plenty (in terms of avoiding frequent error-prone violations of the DRY Principle just to read the code not to mention also modify it), but this reason can be exponentially more important if there are one/more Expressions being Passed that themselves contain commas, i.e. Multi-Dimensional Array Refs or Multi-Parameter Function Calls. In that case, you couldn't even use (which even if you could, would still be adding an extra step per Parameter per Method Call) a Find All Occurrences in a Selection feature in your editor to automate the comma-counting for you.
1.4. if you must use Optional Parameters (params or not), it allows you to search for Calls where a particular Optional Parameter is Passed (and therefore, most likely is not or at least has the possibility of being not the Default Value),
(NOTE: Reasons 1.2. and 1.3. can ease and reduce chances of error even on coding the initial Calls not to mention when Calls have to be read and/or changed.))
and
do so ONE - PARAMETER - PER - LINE for better readability (because:
2.1. it's less cluttered, and
2.2. it avoids having to scroll right & back left (and having to do so PER - LINE, since most mortals can't read the left part of multiple lines, scroll right and read the right part)).
2.3. it's consistent with the "Best Practice" we've already evolved into for Assignment Statements, because every Parameter Passed is in essence an Assignment Statement (assigning a Value or Reference to a Local Variable). Just like those who follow the latest "Best Practice" in Coding Style wouldn't dream of coding multiple Assignment Statements per line, we probably shouldn't (and won't once "Best Practice" catches up to my "genius" ;P ) do so when Passing Parameters.
NOTES:
Passing in Variables whose names mirror the Parameters' doesn't help when:
1.1. you're passing in Literal Constants (i.e. a simple 0/1, false/true or null that even "'Best Practices'" may not require you use a Named Constant for and their purpose can't be easily inferred from the Method name),
1.2. the Method is significantly lower-level / more generic than the Caller such that you would not want / be able to name your Variables the same/similar to the Parameters (or vice versa), or
1.3. you're re-ordering / replacing Parameters in the Signature that may result in prior Calls still Compiling because the Types happen to still be compatible.
Having an auto-wrap feature like VS does only eliminates ONE (#2.2) of the 8 reasons I gave above. Prior to as late as VS 2015, it did NOT auto-indent (!?! Really, MS?!?) which increases severity of reason #2.2.
VS should have an option that generates Method Call snippets with Named Parameters (one per line of course ;P) and a compiler option that requires Named Parameters (similar in concept to Option Explicit in VB which, btw, the requirement of was prolly once thought equally as outrageous but now is prolly required by "'Best Practices'"). In fact, "back in my day" ;), in 1991 just months into my career, even before I was using (or had even seen) a language with Named Parameters, I had the anti-sheeple / "just cuz you can, don't mean you should" / don't blindly "cut the ends of the roast" sense enough to simulate it (using in-line comments) without having seen anyone do so. Not having to use Named Parameters (as well other syntax that save "'precious'" source code keystrokes) is a relic of the Punch Card era when most of these syntaxes started. There's no excuse for that with modern hardware and IDE's and much more complex software where readability is much, Much, MUCH more important. "Code is read much more often than is written". As long as you're not duplicating non-auto-updated code, every keystroke saved is likely to cost exponentially more when someone (even yourself) is trying to read it later.

No need to create overload methods, just use one single method with params as shown below
// Call params method with one to four integer constant parameters.
//
int sum0 = addTwoEach();
int sum1 = addTwoEach(1);
int sum2 = addTwoEach(1, 2);
int sum3 = addTwoEach(3, 3, 3);
int sum4 = addTwoEach(2, 2, 2, 2);

params also allows you to call the method with a single argument.
private static int Foo(params int[] args) {
int retVal = 0;
Array.ForEach(args, (i) => retVal += i);
return retVal;
}
i.e. Foo(1); instead of Foo(new int[] { 1 });. Can be useful for shorthand in scenarios where you might need to pass in a single value rather than an entire array. It still is handled the same way in the method, but gives some candy for calling this way.

Adding params keyword itself shows that you can pass multiple number of parameters while calling that method which is not possible without using it. To be more specific:
static public int addTwoEach(params int[] args)
{
int sum = 0;
foreach (var item in args)
{
sum += item + 2;
}
return sum;
}
When you will call above method you can call it by any of the following ways:
addTwoEach()
addTwoEach(1)
addTwoEach(new int[]{ 1, 2, 3, 4 })
But when you will remove params keyword only third way of the above given ways will work fine. For 1st and 2nd case you will get an error.

One more important thing needs to be highlighted. It's better to use params because it is better for performance. When you call a method with params argument and passed to it nothing:
public void ExampleMethod(params string[] args)
{
// do some stuff
}
call:
ExampleMethod();
Then a new versions of the .Net Framework do this (from .Net Framework 4.6):
ExampleMethod(Array.Empty<string>());
This Array.Empty object can be reused by framework later, so there are no needs to do redundant allocations. These allocations will occur when you call this method like this:
ExampleMethod(new string[] {});

Might sound stupid,
But Params doesn't allow multidimensional array.
Whereas you can pass a multidimensional array to a function.

Another example
public IEnumerable<string> Tokenize(params string[] words)
{
...
}
var items = Tokenize(product.Name, product.FullName, product.Xyz)

It enhances code brevity. Why be lengthy when you can be concise?
using System;
namespace testingParams
{
class Program
{
private void lengthy(int[] myArr)
{
foreach (var item in myArr)
{
//...
}
}
private void concise(params int[] myArr) {
foreach (var item in myArr)
{
//...
}
}
static void Main(string[] args)
{
Program p = new Program();
//Why be lengthy...:
int[] myArr = new int[] { 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 };
p.lengthy(myArr);
//When you can be concise...:
p.concise(1, 2, 3, 4, 5);
}
}
}
If you remove the keyword params, the caller code will not work as desired.

Inline use of function returning more than one value in C#

I am used to using functions that return a single value "in-line" like so:
Label1.Text = firstString + functionReturnSecondString(aGivenParameter);
Can this be done for a function that returns two values?
Hypothetical example:
label1.Text = multipleReturnFunction(parameter).firstValue
I have been looking into returning more than one value and it looks like the best options are using a tuple, struct, or an array list.
I made a working function that retuns a struct. However the way I got it to work I need to first call the function, then I can use the values. It doesn't seem possible to make it happen all on the same line without writing another function.
multipleReturnFunction(parameter);
Label1.Text = firstString + classOfStruct.secondString;
I haven't made a function that returns a tuple or array list yet, so I'm not sure. Is it possible to call those functions and reference the return values "inline"?
I appreciate your feedback.

I have a grotty hack for exactly this type of scenario - when you want to perform multiple operations on the return value without defining an extra variable to store it:
public static TResult Apply<TInput, TResult>(this TInput input, Func<TInput, TResult> transformation)
{
return transformation(input);
}
... and here's the reason it came about in the first place:
var collection = Enumerable.Range(1, 3);
// Average reimplemented with Aggregate.
double average = collection
.Aggregate(
new { Count = 0, Sum = 0 },
(acc, i) => new { Count = acc.Count + 1, Sum = acc.Sum + i })
.Apply(a => (double)a.Sum / (double)a.Count); // Note: we have access to both Sum and Count despite never having stored the result of the call to .Aggregate().
Console.WriteLine("Average: {0}", average);
Needless to say this is better suited for academic exercises than actual production code.

Alternatively, use the ref or they out keyword.
Example:
int a = 0, b = 0;
void DoSomething(ref int a, ref int b) {
a = 1;
b = 2;
}
Console.WriteLine(a); // Prints 1
Console.WriteLine(b); // Prints 2
It's not inline and I personally would consider a class or a struct before using the ref or the out keyword. Let's consider the theory: when you want to return multiple things, you have in fact an object that has multiple properties which you want to make available to the caller of your function.
Therefore it is much more correct to actually create an object (either by using a class or a struct) that represents what you want to make available and returning that.
The only time I use the ref or the out keyword is when using DLL imports because those functions often have pointers as their calling arguments and I personally don't see any benefit in using them in your typical normal application.

To do this inline, I think you would have to have another method that takes your struct and gives you the string you are looking for.
public string NewMethod(object yourStruct)
{
return string.Format("{0} {1}", yourStruct.value1, yourStruct.value2);
}
Then in the page, you do this:
Label1.Text = NewMethod(multipleReturnFunction(parameter));

C# doesn't have Inline functions, but it does support anonymous functions which can be closures.
With these techniques, you can say:
var firstString=default(String);
var secondString=default(String);
((Action<String>)(arg => {
firstString="abc"+arg;
secondString="xyz";
}))("wtf");
label1.Text=firstString+secondString;
Debug.Print("{0}", label1.Text);
((Action<String>)(arg => {
firstString="123"+arg;
secondString="456";
}))("???");
label1.Text=firstString+secondString;
Debug.Print("{0}", label1.Text);
or name the delegate and reuse it:
var firstString=default(String);
var secondString=default(String);
Action<String> m=
arg => {
firstString="abc"+arg;
secondString="xyz";
};
m("wtf");
label1.Text=firstString+secondString;
Debug.Print("{0}", label1.Text);
m("???");
label1.Text=firstString+secondString;
Debug.Print("{0}", label1.Text);
So, do you really need a method returns multiple values?

Each method can return only one value. Thats how methods defined in .NET
Methods are declared in a class or struct by specifying the access
level such as public or private, optional modifiers such as abstract
or sealed, the return value, the name of the method, and any method
parameters
If you need to return more than one value from method, then you have three options:
Return complex type which will hold all values. That cannot help you in this case, because you will need local variable to store value returned by method.
Use out parameters. Also not your case - you will need to declare parameters before method call.
Create another method, which does all work and returns single value.
Third option looks like
Label1.Text = AnotherMethod(parameters);
And implementation
public string AnotherMethod(parameters)
{
// use option 1 or 2 to get both values
// return combined string which uses both values and parameters
}
BTW One more option - do not return values at all - you can use method which sets several class fields.

A couple of questions about optimising code for speed in C#

If I have a method that is called many times, such as:
public int CalledManyTimes(int a, int b)
{
MyObject myObject = new myObject();
int c = a + b + myObject.GetSomeValue();
return c;
}
Is there a performance boost by putting MyObject myObject; outside of the method, so it's only declared once, or will the compiler do this automatically?
How exactly are structs passed around?
I'm passing in a Point struct to a method (Point contains only int x, int y), and that method is altering the value and returning a new Point(newX, newY); Is it better to alter the Point that was passed into the method and return that? Or can I create a Point point; outside the method as proposed in my first question and use that?

myObject appears to have no useful state; so: make that a static method - problem solved; no allocation, no virtual call:
public int CalledManyTimes(int a, int b)
{
int c = a + b + MyObject.GetSomeValue(); // static method
return c;
}
For anything else: profile.
Looking at your specific questions:
Is there a performance boost by putting MyObject myObject; outside of the method, so it's only declared once, or will the compiler do this automatically?
Initializing it zero times is even faster. However, if there is some state that isn't obvious in the question, then yes, I would expect it to be more efficient to reuse a single instance - however, that changes the semantic (in the original the state is not shared between iterations).
How exactly are structs passed around?
By default, they are copied on the stack as soon as you so much as glance in their direction. You can use ref to avoid the copy, which may be useful if the struct is massively overweight, or need to be updated (ideally with reassignment, rather than mutability).

Can parameters be constant?

I'm looking for the C# equivalent of Java's final. Does it exist?
Does C# have anything like the following:
public Foo(final int bar);
In the above example, bar is a read only variable and cannot be changed by Foo(). Is there any way to do this in C#?
For instance, maybe I have a long method that will be working with x, y, and z coordinates of some object (ints). I want to be absolutely certain that the function doesn't alter these values in any way, thereby corrupting the data. Thus, I would like to declare them readonly.
public Foo(int x, int y, int z) {
// do stuff
x++; // oops. This corrupts the data. Can this be caught at compile time?
// do more stuff, assuming x is still the original value.
}

Unfortunately you cannot do this in C#.
The const keyword can only be used for local variables and fields.
The readonly keyword can only be used on fields.
NOTE: The Java language also supports having final parameters to a method. This functionality is non-existent in C#.
from http://www.25hoursaday.com/CsharpVsJava.html
EDIT (2019/08/13):
I'm throwing this in for visibility since this is accepted and highest on the list. It's now kind of possible with in parameters. See the answer below this one for details.

This is now possible in C# version 7.2:
You can use the in keyword in the method signature. MSDN documentation.
The in keyword should be added before specifying a method's argument.
Example, a valid method in C# 7.2:
public long Add(in long x, in long y)
{
return x + y;
}
While the following is not allowed:
public long Add(in long x, in long y)
{
x = 10; // It is not allowed to modify an in-argument.
return x + y;
}
Following error will be shown when trying to modify either x or y since they are marked with in:
Cannot assign to variable 'in long' because it is a readonly variable
Marking an argument with in means:
This method does not modify the value of the argument used as this parameter.

The answer: C# doesn't have the const functionality like C++.
I agree with Bennett Dill.
The const keyword is very useful. In the example, you used an int and people don't get your point. But, why if you parameter is an user huge and complex object that can't be changed inside that function? That's the use of const keyword: parameter can't change inside that method because [whatever reason here] that doesn't matters for that method. Const keyword is very powerful and I really miss it in C#.

Here's a short and sweet answer that will probably get a lot of down votes. I haven't read all of the posts and comments, so please forgive me if this has been previously suggested.
Why not take your parameters and pass them into an object that exposes them as immutable and then use that object in your method?
I realize this is probably a very obvious work around that has already been considered and the OP is trying to avoid doing this by asking this question, but I felt it should be here none-the-less...
Good luck :-)

I'll start with the int portion. int is a value type, and in .Net that means you really are dealing with a copy. It's a really weird design constraint to tell a method "You can have a copy of this value. It's your copy, not mine; I'll never see it again. But you can't change the copy." It's implicit in the method call that copying this value is okay, otherwise we couldn't have safely called the method. If the method needs the original, leave it to the implementer to make a copy to save it. Either give the method the value or do not give the method the value. Don't go all wishy-washy in between.
Let's move on to reference types. Now it gets a little confusing. Do you mean a constant reference, where the reference itself cannot be changed, or a completely locked, unchangeable object? If the former, references in .Net by default are passed by value. That is, you get a copy of the reference. So we have essentially the same situation as for value types. If the implementor will need the original reference they can keep it themselves.
That just leaves us with constant (locked/immutable) object. This might seem okay from a runtime perspective, but how is the compiler to enforce it? Since properties and methods can all have side effects, you'd essentially be limited to read-only field access. Such an object isn't likely to be very interesting.

Create an interface for your class that has only readonly property accessors. Then have your parameter be of that interface rather than the class itself. Example:
public interface IExample
{
int ReadonlyValue { get; }
}
public class Example : IExample
{
public int Value { get; set; }
public int ReadonlyValue { get { return this.Value; } }
}
public void Foo(IExample example)
{
// Now only has access to the get accessors for the properties
}
For structs, create a generic const wrapper.
public struct Const<T>
{
public T Value { get; private set; }
public Const(T value)
{
this.Value = value;
}
}
public Foo(Const<float> X, Const<float> Y, Const<float> Z)
{
// Can only read these values
}
Its worth noting though, that its strange that you want to do what you're asking to do regarding structs, as the writer of the method you should expect to know whats going on in that method. It won't affect the values passed in to modify them within the method, so your only concern is making sure you behave yourself in the method you're writing. There comes a point where vigilance and clean code are the key, over enforcing const and other such rules.

I know this might be little late.
But for people that are still searching other ways for this, there might be another way around this limitation of C# standard.
We could write wrapper class ReadOnly<T> where T : struct.
With implicit conversion to base type T.
But only explicit conversion to wrapper<T> class.
Which will enforce compiler errors if developer tries implicit set to value of ReadOnly<T> type.
As I will demonstrate two possible uses below.
USAGE 1 required caller definition to change. This usage will have only use in testing for correctness of your "TestCalled" functions code. While on release level/builds you shouldn't use it. Since in large scale mathematical operations might overkill in conversions, and make your code slow. I wouldn't use it, but for demonstration purpose only I have posted it.
USAGE 2 which I would suggest, has Debug vs Release use demonstrated in TestCalled2 function. Also there would be no conversion in TestCaller function when using this approach, but it requires a little more of coding of TestCaller2 definitions using compiler conditioning. You can notice compiler errors in debug configuration, while on release configuration all code in TestCalled2 function will compile successfully.
using System;
using System.Collections.Generic;
public class ReadOnly<VT>
where VT : struct
{
private VT value;
public ReadOnly(VT value)
{
this.value = value;
}
public static implicit operator VT(ReadOnly<VT> rvalue)
{
return rvalue.value;
}
public static explicit operator ReadOnly<VT>(VT rvalue)
{
return new ReadOnly<VT>(rvalue);
}
}
public static class TestFunctionArguments
{
static void TestCall()
{
long a = 0;
// CALL USAGE 1.
// explicite cast must exist in call to this function
// and clearly states it will be readonly inside TestCalled function.
TestCalled(a); // invalid call, we must explicit cast to ReadOnly<T>
TestCalled((ReadOnly<long>)a); // explicit cast to ReadOnly<T>
// CALL USAGE 2.
// Debug vs Release call has no difference - no compiler errors
TestCalled2(a);
}
// ARG USAGE 1.
static void TestCalled(ReadOnly<long> a)
{
// invalid operations, compiler errors
a = 10L;
a += 2L;
a -= 2L;
a *= 2L;
a /= 2L;
a++;
a--;
// valid operations
long l;
l = a + 2;
l = a - 2;
l = a * 2;
l = a / 2;
l = a ^ 2;
l = a | 2;
l = a & 2;
l = a << 2;
l = a >> 2;
l = ~a;
}
// ARG USAGE 2.
#if DEBUG
static void TestCalled2(long a2_writable)
{
ReadOnly<long> a = new ReadOnly<long>(a2_writable);
#else
static void TestCalled2(long a)
{
#endif
// invalid operations
// compiler will have errors in debug configuration
// compiler will compile in release
a = 10L;
a += 2L;
a -= 2L;
a *= 2L;
a /= 2L;
a++;
a--;
// valid operations
// compiler will compile in both, debug and release configurations
long l;
l = a + 2;
l = a - 2;
l = a * 2;
l = a / 2;
l = a ^ 2;
l = a | 2;
l = a & 2;
l = a << 2;
l = a >> 2;
l = ~a;
}
}

If you often run into trouble like this then you should consider "apps hungarian". The good kind, as opposed to the bad kind. While this doesn't normally tries to express constant-ness of a method parameter (that's just too unusual), there is certainly nothing that stops you from tacking an extra "c" before the identifier name.
To all those aching to slam the downvote button now, please read the opinions of these luminaries on the topic:
Eric Lippert
Larry Osterman
Joel Spolsky

If struct is passed into a method, unless it's passed by ref, it will not be changed by the method it's passed into. So in that sense, yes.
Can you create a parameter whose value can't be assigned within the method or whose properties cannot be set while within the method? No. You cannot prevent the value from being assigned within the method, but you can prevent it's properties from being set by creating an immutable type.
The question isn't whether the parameter or it's properties can be assigned to within the method. The question is what it will be when the method exits.
The only time any outside data is going to be altered is if you pass a class in and change one of it's properties, or if you pass a value by using the ref keyword. The situation you've outlined does neither.

The recommended (well, by me) is to use an interface that provides read only access to the members. Remembering that if the "real" member is a reference type, then only provide access to an interface supporting read operations for that type -- recursing down the entire object hierarchy.