Please remove my email from this group. Thanks.
>From: Sam Gentile <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: Discussion of the Rotor Shared Source CLI implementation > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Re: [DOTNET-ROTOR] C# compiler cannot handle interfaces with >static methods >Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2002 16:03:12 -0400 > > >>I've long held [1] that CLS compliance is too important a thing to be >left >>up to the compiler implementer > >Agreed with Peter. I would also like to see a tool that verifies >compliance. > > >Sam Gentile >.NET Consultant >[EMAIL PROTECTED] >http://www.samgentile.com >http://radio.weblogs.com/0105852/ > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Discussion of the Rotor Shared Source CLI implementation >[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Peter Drayton >Sent: Monday, August 19, 2002 4:00 PM >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Re: [DOTNET-ROTOR] C# compiler cannot handle interfaces with >static methods > > > Both the .NET Framework and Rotor C# implementations do allow > > compile-time enforcement via use of the CLSCompliant attribute. > > Using this attribute causes the compiler to error on anything > > that it catches as non-CLS compliant, UInt32 etc. > >This is one of the advantages IMO of C# over VB.NET, since the C# >compiler is proactive in checking developers' assertions re: CLS >compliance and erroring if they got it wrong, while the VB.NET compiler >is more, ahem, trusting... > > > I don't think there's any reason for us to desire to underplay > > the CLS, it's a useful and important concept. It's in everyone's > > interest to encourage language implementors to support this > > subset of the CLI at a minimum and compiler implementors to help > > developers by having compile-time enforcement. > >+1. I'd also add that class designers should be encouraged to support >exposing all their functionality through CLS-compliant APIs. > >I've long held [1] that CLS compliance is too important a thing to be >left up to the compiler implementor. It would be great to see a >stand-alone CLS compliance checking tool that could be used to verify >CLS compliance of an assembly. > >This would let developers catch errors that slip through laxer compilers >that don't perform the checks, and would let class library consumers >quickly determine if the libraries they are consuming are completely CLS >compliant. > >Monash University has a web service that does this [2]. However, what >I'm after is a standalone command-line tool a-la PEVerify, included in >the FW SDK, and also ideally implemented as a set of FxCop rules for >inclusion in automated build procedures. > >--Peter >http://www.razorsoft.net/weblog >http://staff.develop.com/peterd > >[1] http://www.razorsoft.net/weblog/2002/02/24.html#a32 >[2] http://lightning.csse.monash.edu.au/cli-c/ ________________________ Luis Miguel Silva _________________________________________________________________ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com
