[Mono-devel-list] Re: Can mono have methods(etc) not present MS implementation?

Rafael Teixeira monoman at gmail.com
Mon Jul 4 18:02:43 EDT 2005

The first suggestion is out-of-question, for a library distributed with Mono.

The second one is unadvisable, but sometimes we already did that to be
able to make your compilers work (indeed they have some problems when
running them on MS.NET).


On 7/2/05, Robert Jordan <robertj at gmx.net> wrote:
> Alexandre,
> > My question is simple, can we do something on a MS controlled namespace
> > that is not part of the default implementation? Of course raising a mcs
> > warning telling something like "This method will make your app not to
> > run on MS.NET".
> >
> > This comes from a desire to introduce something in CodeDom, for instance
> > for a Method I wish it to be able to contain more info than the default
> > like SourceCodeLocation (line/column).
> >
> > What do you advice, to create a fork and keep patching it to stay sync
> > with mono tree or use what I proposed?
> If you just want to warn the consumer of the changed library about
> the incompatibility: misuse the ObsoleteAttribute:
> public void FooMethod()
> If you want to build code that will run on both runtimes,
> then never change the public interface. Introduce new members
> only as "internal". Those menbers can be accessed using reflection.
> Rob
> _______________________________________________
> Mono-devel-list mailing list
> Mono-devel-list at lists.ximian.com
> http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-devel-list

Rafael "Monoman" Teixeira
I'm trying to become a "Rosh Gadol" before my own eyes. 
See http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2004/12/06.html for enlightment.
It hurts!

More information about the Mono-devel-list mailing list