Sounds totally reasonable. Thanks George! On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 9:17 PM, George Aroush <[email protected]> wrote:
> We can clean those up, once we archive a port status such that we can port > patches over vs. a whole release. This is because a whole release port > depends heavily on deltas between releases. Thus, any extra code changes > will make a whole port harder. > > -- George > > -----Original Message----- > From: Eric Nicholson [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2009 11:24 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: CLS Compliance and Compiler Warnings > > I apologize if this has been asked already, but is there any effort > underway > or interest in getting Lucene.NET to compile as a CLS-Compliant assembly? > What about reducing or eliminating the compiler warnings? I know both of > these would make my build environment a little saner. Looking at the code > it looks like there is not much involved in getting it to compile clean. I > noticed a few things in particular: > > * unused variables - warning > * protected internal fields with different case than a public property or > class - non-cls compliant > * public consts that start with underscore - non-cls compliant > > Is there some reason the code needs to stay exactly the way it is (like > maintaining parity with the Java project)? It seems like a pretty small > amount of work, I'd be happy to submit a patch if anyone thinks it would be > helpful. > > Best Regards, > Eric Nicholson > >
