> I'll start a more official vote thread to finalize our stance. I think the > general consensus is "yes to var", but that might just be my bias talking. Maybe, I am missing something but "var" is just a syntactic sugar and changes nothing in IL level. So, I don't see a case to vote. If you think the code will be easier to read, use it. If not, don't.
DIGY -----Original Message----- From: Troy Howard [mailto:thowar...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 10:54 PM To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org Subject: Re: [Lucene.Net] var I'll start a more official vote thread to finalize our stance. I think the general consensus is "yes to var", but that might just be my bias talking. Re: Government projects and new tech.. There is nothing stopping conservative organizations from using our previous releases. Building from source or using the bleeding edge is not a smart tactic for anyone who cares about stability, government or otherwise. -T On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 10:58 AM, Michael Herndon < mhern...@wickedsoftware.net> wrote: > Let me know once this is a concrete answer. It needs to go on the wiki and > tweeted and even blogged about. > > There will most likely be some push back, especially if anyone is using > Lucene.Net inside of government projects. They always take forever in > letting you develop with the latest stable technologies. > > - Michael > > > > On Sat, May 7, 2011 at 11:09 AM, Digy <digyd...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > The new C# features are committed only to 2.9.4g branch. 2.9.4 can still > be > > built targeting .NET 2.0. > > We can continue to support both version in parallel (in terms of bug > fixes > > such as LUCENENET-172 & LUCENENET-413, maybe LUCENENET-266) and declare > that > > 2.9.4 will be the last version supporting 2.0 framework. > > > > DIGY > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Troy Howard [mailto:thowar...@gmail.com] > > Sent: Saturday, May 07, 2011 12:06 PM > > To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org > > Subject: Re: [Lucene.Net] var > > > > Using var is wonderful and great. We'll hopefully do doing a lot of > > refactoring in the near future. var makes refactoring easier. > > > > I think we've committed fairly strongly to moving past 2.0 support. AFAIK > > the current trunk won't build under 2.0 anyhow (or am I mistaken, DIGY > used > > HashSet<T> in a recent patch, which is 3.5 or higher, and all the > solutions > > I committed in the recent directory updates were VS2010, and all the > csproj > > files updated to target 4.0). So, I don't see any reason to maintain 2.0 > > compatibility... The 4.0 runtime offers so many benefits over previous > > versions that, IMO, everyone who writes .NET apps should be working hard > to > > migrate forward to 4.0 if they aren't already there. > > > > We can help the community along by giving them one more good reason to > > switch to a better runtime. > > > > Thanks, > > Troy > > > > > > On Sat, May 7, 2011 at 12:41 AM, Aaron Powell <m...@aaron-powell.com> > wrote: > > > > > Yes it's a C# 3 feature, but the C# 3 compiler (shipped in VS 2008) can > > > compile C# 2.0 and C# 3.0 assemblies. > > > Quick test: http://www.aaron-powell.com/get/var-csharp-2.PNG > > > > > > I don't have VS 2008 though, this test was done with VS 2010 using the > > > multitargetting features > > > > > > Aaron Powell > > > MVP - Internet Explorer (Development) | Umbraco Core Team > > > Member | FunnelWeb Team Member > > > > > > http://apowell.me | http://twitter.com/slace | Skype: aaron.l.powell | > > > MSN: aaz...@hotmail.com > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Prescott Nasser [mailto:geobmx...@hotmail.com] > > > Sent: Saturday, 7 May 2011 5:32 PM > > > To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org > > > Subject: RE: [Lucene.Net] var > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ~Prescott Nasser > > > prescott.nas...@hotmail.com > > > 650.208.4205 > > > > > > It's a 3.0 keyword, can't be used pre C# 3.0 > > > > > > > > > > From: m...@aaron-powell.com > > > > To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org > > > > Date: Sat, 7 May 2011 07:28:36 +0000 > > > > Subject: RE: [Lucene.Net] var > > > > > > > > My understanding of the 'var' keyword is just C# syntactic sugar, > which > > > the compiler will translate into the actual CLR type for variable > > > assignment, so the compiler is capable of compiling CLR 2.0 assemblies > > > anyway. > > > > > > > > Aaron Powell > > > > MVP - Internet Explorer (Development) | Umbraco Core Team Member | > > > FunnelWeb Team Member > > > > > > > > http://apowell.me | http://twitter.com/slace | Skype: aaron.l.powell > | > > > MSN: aaz...@hotmail.com > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Michael Herndon [mailto:mhern...@wickedsoftware.net] > > > > Sent: Saturday, 7 May 2011 3:56 PM > > > > To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org > > > > Subject: Re: [Lucene.Net] var > > > > > > > > I think that is going to depend on if we are continuing .net 2.0 / C# > > 2.0 > > > support or dropping it. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, May 7, 2011 at 1:19 AM, Prescott Nasser < > geobmx...@hotmail.com > > > >wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Where do we stand on use of the var keyword? > > > > > > > > > > > > >
