Hi,
Thank you for tracking this down. Could you fill a bug report at
http://www.mono-project.com/Bugs so we can address the issue.
Marek
> I try to use these voodoo keywords and have a small report:
>
> 1) gmcs currently supports only __arglist keyword, but sometimes
> generates incorrect CIL.
On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 5:57 AM, "Andrés G. Aragoneses" wrote:
> Leszek Ciesielski wrote:
>> On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 11:09 AM, Leszek Ciesielski wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I'm getting a
>>>
>>> ERROR:mini-trampolines.c:122:mono_magic_trampoline: assertion failed: (vt)
>>>
>>> when running my NUnit test
xbuild (svn) can't directly handle .sln files right now. But it can
build the temporary .proj that msbuild
generates for .sln files.
We can build the .sln.proj with multiple projects. Its not
complete yet though.
Currently, it generates the resources, satellite assemblies,
resolves gac/a
It sounds like the general reaction is cautiously favorable. New
language features would be nice, but they would require a commitment
to maintenance. As I see it, whether we are willing to invest ongoing
effort in a feature depends on the strength of the feature. A
sufficiently "killer" feature wil
And another new patch which syncs with SVN and does some minor refactoring.
Index: mono/metadata/class.c
===
--- mono/metadata/class.c (revision 125862)
+++ mono/metadata/class.c (working copy)
@@ -2086,6 +2086,55 @@
return (key->int
OK, kumpera and I were doing the type math yesterday and discovered
that the CLI spec is totally wrong about its variance rules. Like,
embarrassingly so. So we figured out what the proper variance rules
REALLY are, and this is a patch for that. Contributed under the
MIT/X11 license.
Index: mcs/type
+if (method->dynamic || method->klass->image->dynamic) {
+gboolean result;
+MonoCustomAttrInfo *ainfo = lookup_custom_attr
(method->klass->image, method);
+
+if (ainfo != NULL) {
+result = mono_custom_attrs_has_attr_partial (ainfo,
attr_assembly, attr_name_sp
Scott Peterson wrote:
> It sounds like the general reaction is cautiously favorable. New
> language features would be nice, but they would require a commitment
> to maintenance. As I see it, whether we are willing to invest ongoing
> effort in a feature depends on the strength of the feature. A
> s
On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 2:54 PM, Scott Peterson wrote:
> If other people are interested in geeking out over language features,
> I suggest we get ourselves a little organized. We could hold forth
> right here, on this list, or we could create our own Google Group.
> Bugzilla is maybe another option
On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 8:54 AM, Scott Peterson wrote:
> So what is (are) the killer feature(s)? I would be interested in
> organizing a forum for proposing and discussing language features. If
> for no other reason than as an excuse to talk about language design
> with smart people. This forum cou
On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 12:19 PM, Jonathan Pryor wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-02-05 at 12:10 -0500, Avery Pennarun wrote:
>> (The reason I use cpp, incidentally, is so I can implement C-style
>> assert() and check() macros that actually print the condition being
>> tested as part of the assertion message.
On Thu, 2009-02-05 at 12:10 -0500, Avery Pennarun wrote:
> (The reason I use cpp, incidentally, is so I can implement C-style
> assert() and check() macros that actually print the condition being
> tested as part of the assertion message. There seems to be no other
> way to do this in C#, which is
Hi,
> On Thu, 2009-02-05 at 12:10 -0500, Avery Pennarun wrote:
>
>> (The reason I use cpp, incidentally, is so I can implement C-style
>> assert() and check() macros that actually print the condition being
>> tested as part of the assertion message. There seems to be no other
>> way to do this
On Thu, 2009-02-05 at 18:54 +, Marek Safar wrote:
> Here is slightly simplified version
>
> [Conditional("DEBUG")]
> static void Assert (Expression> e)
> {
> var d = e.Compile ();
> if (!d ()) {
> Console.WriteLine (((LambdaExpression)e).Body.ToString ()
Might another language like Boo be a better place for the non-standard future
features?
If in C#, a different flag from future should be used to diffentuate
nonstandard from true future stuff (minor implmentation detail)
This is not a vote or even a suggestion, just some random thoughts.
D
Hi there,
After reading: http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/02/05/2138228,
and after the announce of the LGPL Qt release, I think it's quite clear
there's a lot to gain from a *solid* Qt binding for Mono.
I mean, the Qyoto doesn't look like an alive project anymore (not at
least a coup
Hi,
I've just finished running our internal PNUnit test suite on Open
Solaris x86 with hand-compiled Mono 2.2. It works. The same is true for
Solaris 10 x86.
I've published a "test" binary release of Mono 2.0.1 for Solaris x86 in
blastwave a few weeks ago. Next one will be 2.2.
MWF runs on 2.
Hi there,
After reading: http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/02/05/2138228,
and after the announce of the LGPL Qt release, I think it's quite clear
there's a lot to gain from a *solid* Qt binding for Mono.
I mean, the Qyoto doesn't look like an alive project anymore (not at
le
> And my own idea: add support for "# line" style preprocessor tags, as
> produced by cpp. I have a few programs that need to run through cpp
> before compiling, and the lack of "# line" support means that (unless
> I'm almost impossibly careful and do some strange tricks) the line
> numbers repo
On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 6:49 PM, Miguel de Icaza wrote:
>> And my own idea: add support for "# line" style preprocessor tags, as
>> produced by cpp. I have a few programs that need to run through cpp
>> before compiling, and the lack of "# line" support means that (unless
>> I'm almost impossibly
> I admit I haven't tried it in a while - my workarounds date back to
> mono 1.2.6 or so. Was it added recently?
That is a few years old. You might want to upgrade.
___
Mono-devel-list mailing list
Mono-devel-list@lists.ximian.com
http://lists.ximia
@@ -2086,6 +2086,55 @@
return (key->interface_id - element->interface_id);
}
+static gboolean
+mono_class_has_variant_generic_params (MonoClass *klass)
+{
Use a forward declaration instead of moving the function.
Index: mono/tests/generic-variance2.cs
===
Hi,
Some time ago I was started project http://code.google.com/p/nobjectiveast/
NObjectiveAST that can be used to automate process of wrappers generation
by parsing preprocessed Qt headers. Using it you can save time and improve
my project. See usage in NObjective:
http://code.google.com/p/nobj
23 matches
Mail list logo
