If basic types are object, why can't we do this?

Question

So for complex types, we can write:

return new MyType ( 5 );

but why can't we do stuff like (to have symmetry for one):

return new int ( 5 );

return new Int64 ( 5 );

I know only parameterless constructors are provided. What's the reason for this?

Answer 1

This may sound odd but why would you want to? - complex types make sense since you are using 1-n inputs to get a result but the int just returns an int...so why?

Answer 2

What would be the point? Any of the .NET value types that don't have a constructor have a literal form. If they didn't have a literal form, it would be impossible to provide a constructor that takes its type as a parameter.

Since you have the literal, providing a constructor which takes that literal makes no sense.

Without literal, impossible

int i = new int(new int(new int(...)));

With literal

int i = new int(5); // What is the point? Would the constructor do *anything*
                    // besides int i = 5?

Answer 3

Part of design is knowing what to leave out. Since it doesn't add value, it wasn't coded.

Answer 4

It's just that these types only have a default constructor. A lot of other complex .net type only have a default constructor as well. I would guess the reason that there isn't a parameterized one is because, as mentioned by other answers, there isn't really a good reason for one.