[Mono-devel-list] Re: [mono-vb] VB Class status
ryan at intellidev.com
Fri Jun 25 01:37:08 EDT 2004
Wouldn't it just make more sense to implement the VB namespace in its
own language? That's the approach Microsoft took when developing it,
and granted it might be some porting work from this point since the
class was already started in C#, but I think in the long run it would be
a wiser decision.
For all we know, there might be future changes in the future that may
require other VB specific features to properly compile that we would
have to create custom exceptions for or otherwise modify how the IL is
generated from the source code. It seems better in my view at least to
hedge against this possible condition and implement the library in VB.
From: mono-devel-list-admin at lists.ximian.com
[mailto:mono-devel-list-admin at lists.ximian.com] On Behalf Of Raja R
Sent: Friday, June 25, 2004 12:03 AM
To: A Rafael D Teixeira
Cc: mono-vb at lists.ximian.com; mono-devel-list at lists.ximian.com
Subject: Re: [Mono-devel-list] Re: [mono-vb] VB Class status
"A Rafael D Teixeira" <rafaelteixeirabr at hotmail.com> writes:
> Kudos Raja, you went right to the point.
> The problem is (besides the MonoTODO) that if C# doesn't have the
> to support it, we may have to rewrite part, or the whole, of our
> in VB.NET, or put an option in mcs to specifically allow such
> of syntax (Miguel probably wouldn't like that).
If it is just for us to implement Microsoft.VisualBasic in C#, we
probably don't need a special syntax for this. We can have an internal
And either 'mcs' or ParameterBuilder.SetCustomAttribute() can handle
specially. However, it won't work with CSC -- I don't see that as a
major problem, though.
If you want to provide a general facility for expressing this CIL
capability in C#, then, yeah -- it's a problem :-)
Mono-devel-list mailing list
Mono-devel-list at lists.ximian.com
More information about the Mono-devel-list