Yes, sorry -- I didn't mean to conflate the two issues. 'var' is just syntactic sugar. I'm more concerned with the framework support issue, which is not directly related to the use of var, but is tied in with the discussion.
Thanks, Troy On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 1:18 PM, Digy <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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:[email protected]] > Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 10:54 PM > To: [email protected] > 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 < > [email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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:[email protected]] > > > Sent: Saturday, May 07, 2011 12:06 PM > > > To: [email protected] > > > 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 <[email protected]> > > 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: [email protected] > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Prescott Nasser [mailto:[email protected]] > > > > Sent: Saturday, 7 May 2011 5:32 PM > > > > To: [email protected] > > > > Subject: RE: [Lucene.Net] var > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ~Prescott Nasser > > > > [email protected] > > > > 650.208.4205 > > > > > > > > It's a 3.0 keyword, can't be used pre C# 3.0 > > > > > > > > > > > > > From: [email protected] > > > > > To: [email protected] > > > > > 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: [email protected] > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > From: Michael Herndon [mailto:[email protected]] > > > > > Sent: Saturday, 7 May 2011 3:56 PM > > > > > To: [email protected] > > > > > 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 < > > [email protected] > > > > >wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Where do we stand on use of the var keyword? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
