"Implicit static constructor" terminology is inaccurate and causes confusion

[jskeet]

From the page:

For implicit static constructors that are not explicitly defined in source code, troubleshooting may require inspection of the intermediate language (IL) code.

Assuming this actually means "for classes which don't have a static constructor, but you need to troubleshoot the type initializer". There's no such thing as an "implicit static constructor" in the same way that there can be an implicit instance constructor (which behaves almost identically to an explicitly-provided parameterless constructor). The presence of a static constructor affects timing (as is stated on the page) so talking about an "implicit" one is really confusing. (If one were provided implicitly, then there would always be one present, right?)

---

Document Details

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

• ID: aa3ed1c5-1f79-9234-beec-b5771c3fb3c0
• Version Independent ID: ac4f6361-70a7-fb43-101e-c12044f60896
• Content: Static Constructors - C# Programming Guide
• Content Source: docs/csharp/programming-guide/classes-and-structs/static-constructors.md
• Product: dotnet-csharp
• Technology: csharp-fundamentals
• GitHub Login: @BillWagner
• Microsoft Alias: wiwagn

[BillWagner]

Thanks @jskeet

As I find these, I've been updating the articles to be more consistent with the language we use in the standard. When you spot them, adding issues like these helps me out.

[jskeet]

My pleasure - you can rely on me for pedantry whenever I spot something ;)