[Mono-dev] [PATCH] System.Linq.Expressions
Hi, this is the first of a series of patches vs the System.Linq.Expressions namespace. This patch doesn't change a lot of things but at least adds some tests (they were completely missing before). Included: * Added Test/ directory, modified Makefile to build and execute them * Changed a couple of Expression methods to raise exceptions identicals to MS ones * Added tests for AddExpression and ConstantExpression * Implemented somme missing stuff in BinaryExpression * The stuff in ExpressionUtils is very generic and does quite some redundant checks: I started splitting the stuff there into more specific methods that should be both understandable and fast. Also, as I check that everything is done I do some cosmetic changes to have the code in line with the style guidelines. Hope this is ok. Just tell me if the patch is fine and if does make sense to continue implementing System.Linq.Expressions. federico -- Federico Di Gregorio http://people.initd.org/fog Debian GNU/Linux Developer[EMAIL PROTECTED] INIT.D Developer [EMAIL PROTECTED] Ubuntu is an ancient African word meaning I can't configure Debian. -- somewhere on IRC System.Core-r83906.diff.gz Description: GNU Zip compressed data signature.asc Description: Questa รจ una parte del messaggio firmata digitalmente ___ Mono-devel-list mailing list Mono-devel-list@lists.ximian.com http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-devel-list
Re: [Mono-dev] [PATCH] System.Linq.Expressions
Hello Federico, this is the first of a series of patches vs the System.Linq.Expressions namespace. This patch doesn't change a lot of things but at least adds some tests (they were completely missing before). Included: * Added Test/ directory, modified Makefile to build and execute them * Changed a couple of Expression methods to raise exceptions identicals to MS ones * Added tests for AddExpression and ConstantExpression * Implemented somme missing stuff in BinaryExpression * The stuff in ExpressionUtils is very generic and does quite some redundant checks: I started splitting the stuff there into more specific methods that should be both understandable and fast. Nice! Just a few minor problems: * Assert.AreEqual (expr.Method, null); It's always better to use most appropriate method. In the cases like this should be Assert.IsNull or similar. * Assert.AreEqual(expr.Method.Name, op_Addition); The preferred way it's add a message or at least id to each assertion. * BindingFlags flags = BindingFlags.Public | BindingFlags.NonPublic | BindingFlags.Static; This should be constant. * builder.Append ([ + nodeType + ]); I know you didn't write this code, but this is preferred when you have StringBuilder to avoid double allocation. builder.Append ([).Append (nodeType).Append (]); Also, as I check that everything is done I do some cosmetic changes to have the code in line with the style guidelines. Hope this is ok. Yes, no problem. Just tell me if the patch is fine and if does make sense to continue implementing System.Linq.Expressions. Thanks, Marek ___ Mono-devel-list mailing list Mono-devel-list@lists.ximian.com http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-devel-list
Re: [Mono-dev] Oracle.DataAcces.Client unimplemented?
Use System.Data.OracleClient instead. --- Brandon Perry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Is the Oracle assembly unimplemented, or am I missing a package? I cannot find it in the Add References... dialog. ___ Mono-devel-list mailing list Mono-devel-list@lists.ximian.com http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-devel-list Ready for the edge of your seat? Check out tonight's top picks on Yahoo! TV. http://tv.yahoo.com/ ___ Mono-devel-list mailing list Mono-devel-list@lists.ximian.com http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-devel-list
Re: [Mono-dev] [PATCH] System.Linq.Expressions
Hi Guys, * Assert.AreEqual (expr.Method, null); It's always better to use most appropriate method. In the cases like this should be Assert.IsNull or similar. * Assert.AreEqual(expr.Method.Name, op_Addition); The preferred way it's add a message or at least id to each assertion. Both statements have a more serious problem in that the aruments are backwards. The expected value comes first. It makes no difference if none of your tests fail, but it can be really confusing when they do and the message is backwards! Charlie ___ Mono-devel-list mailing list Mono-devel-list@lists.ximian.com http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-devel-list
