Hey Eno, Yep, I agree it's a corner case, that can be postponed. Yet I think it's worth mentioning in a MonoInternalNoteAttribute, just to not forget.
In addition, there can be a performance issue related to Activator.CreateInstance() call, that can be solved in the same time. On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 5:32 PM, Atsushi Eno <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi Kosta, > > Thanks for digging it. It sounds interesting, though I'm not sure how > it is significant. INullable is in System.Data.SqlTypes namespace, > so I'd expect that it is mostly for internal use. > > The fix I made for SqlXxx type support as null value is rather > to make Sys.Data classes to not premise DBNull than picking every > possible supported types. > > Of course, changing relevant to support INullable is better than > now I think. > > Atsushi Eno > > > > Konstantin Triger wrote: > >> Hello all, >> >> It was strange to me that MS perform a special check for SqlXXX types, so >> I started looking what is common to them. I saw that all of them derive from >> INullable. It looked interesting, so I created my type that derived from >> INullable. When I tried to set it as a DataColumn type, I got an exception >> stating that I must have a static property or field named "Null". When I >> added it, I got its value for DataColumn.DefaultValue. >> >> Regards, >> Kosta >> > > -- Regards, Konstantin Triger RSS: http://feeds.feedburner.com/ktriger
_______________________________________________ Mono-devel-list mailing list Mono-devel-list@lists.ximian.com http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-devel-list