[Mono-bugs] [Bug 52502][Nor] New - We do not report CS0134

bugzilla-daemon@bugzilla.ximian.com bugzilla-daemon@bugzilla.ximian.com
Sat, 7 Feb 2004 12:48:43 -0500 (EST)

Please do not reply to this email- if you want to comment on the bug, go to the
URL shown below and enter your comments there.

Changed by miguel@ximian.com.


--- shadow/52502	2004-02-07 12:48:43.000000000 -0500
+++ shadow/52502.tmp.21706	2004-02-07 12:48:43.000000000 -0500
@@ -0,0 +1,59 @@
+Bug#: 52502
+Product: Mono/Compilers
+Version: unspecified
+OS: unknown
+OS Details: 
+Status: NEW   
+Severity: Unknown
+Priority: Normal
+Component: C#
+AssignedTo: mono-bugs@ximian.com                            
+ReportedBy: bmaurer@users.sf.net               
+QAContact: mono-bugs@ximian.com
+TargetMilestone: ---
+Summary: We do not report CS0134
+namespace A {
+	namespace B.C {
+		public class D {
+			public static void Main()
+			{
+			}
+		}
+	}
+Should give
+t.cs(2,12): error CS0134: Cannot use qualified namespace names in nested
+        namespace declarations
+------- Additional Comments From pcgod@gmx.net  2003-12-23 20:47 -------
+Created an attachment (id=6316)
+proposed patch
+------- Additional Comments From bmaurer@users.sf.net  2003-12-23 21:15 -------
+Created an attachment (id=6318)
+Cleaner version
+------- Additional Comments From bmaurer@users.sf.net  2003-12-23 21:16 -------
+This version implements it in the parser, a cleaner impl IMHO. Most of
+the credit goes to the other Ben.
+------- Additional Comments From miguel@ximian.com  2003-12-25 17:17 -------
+Am not sure if we should implement this, I remember seeing in the spec
+it was allowed.  Can we double check?  (dont have the spec here).
+------- Additional Comments From bmaurer@users.sf.net  2003-12-25 17:43 -------
+csc will not compile it, so we should not. If we did, someone might
+check something into cvs that would not compile on csc. It is clearly
+not a bug in their impl, they went to the effort to create an error
+message, reserve an error number, document the error number, etc. 
+I can't find any spec references that explictly prohibit this
+behavior, however nothing in the spec specifies this case. Can you
+talk to the Microsoft guys about their rationale? I can't figure out
+why they would reject such a decl.