If the .NET 2 conditional is present, why does Moma report they are TODO,
and how do I fix it. Is it a case need to move all that code into separate
assembly
and make it .net 2.
Thanks.
-Original Message-
From: Leszek Ciesielski [mailto:skol...@gmail.com]
Sent: 20 January 2011 07:34
To:
Hi,
If you have a look at the source, for BaseXmlSchemaType:
// FIXME:This property works as always returning a
valid schema type.
[MonoTODO]
Whatever that means, it means that part of the property is
implemented, but some cases are still left to handle. Until you'v
Hi,
I tested the xml.schema.linq which is the managed provider for Linq to XSD,
has a 3.5 profile dependency. The other dll's pass fine in Moma.
How do I go about fixing. Can you give me a path to follow.
Is it bug, that Moma is report TODO, when implementation is complete.
Thanks.
-Ori
Hi JB,
Ah, Moma is always going to be slightly imperfect as it's always running late.
No, I'm ashamed to say I haven't but I will now.
Bob.
-Original Message-
From: Jb Evain [mailto:jbev...@gmail.com]
Sent: 20 January 2011 13:20
To: Bob PS Watson
Cc: Leszek Ciesielski; mono-devel-list
Sounds like it's just that those "marked as MonoTODO" members have
cosmetic reasons for those attributes. You should not expect too much on
those attributes that they reflect what you think. They are rather used
wild-guessing guidelines.
There is no toolchain (moma) bug when they are indeed mark
Hello,
> There is no toolchain (moma) bug when they are indeed marked. And I
> won't remove those attributes when there are reasons.
>
> Why don't you just *run* it and see if it works or not instead?
A couple of years ago we introduced a couple of extra attributes
(derived from MonoTODO) that ar
On 17 Jan 2011, at 6:00PM, Rodrigo Kumpera wrote:
I'm not sure what the defined behavior is on this case, MSDN is not
always accurate and we
need to be as compatible with MS as possible.
Could you please write a test case, and if the behavior you suggest
is correct, send a patch
which incl
Hello Dick,
Please apply to both 2-10 and master branches.
Thanks for tracking this down.
Miguel
On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 11:15 AM, Dick Porter
wrote:
>
> On 17 Jan 2011, at 6:00PM, Rodrigo Kumpera wrote:
>>
>> I'm not sure what the defined behavior is on this case, MSDN is not always
>>
Hello Pablo,
> Yes, it's me again talking about Solaris... this time, MWF on Solaris
> 11. It seems the latest version got rid of some well-known X problems:
>
> http://www.facebook.com/album.php?aid=253265&id=8260127524&saved
Very nice screenshots!
Miguel
__
