[Mono-list] Resource System Proposal

[Serge]

Sorry, but I don't get your point.
I think, everybody agreed that introducing extensions/new keywords
is a bad thing.
Also the main point of the original proposal is to provide some consistent
solution to common problem.
One solution is to introduce new internal static method to Mono's Object
implementation. This is not against standards and has no impact on
compatibility. Internal access modifier is specifically designed for such
situation. It is not exposed to outer world.
In my opinion this approach won't solve the entire problem since standard
library has many assemblies not only corlib where Object is defined. But
there are no *compatibility* problems.
Next thing is that CLR supports "global" methods, but C# don't. I'm not
advocating adding such support in Mono implementation of C#. But I'm saying
that availability of global methods in C# would eliminate the entire problem
(the core problem is to avoid dotted names and use traditional gettext
syntax).
That said, I could use dotted names without too much problems ;-)
Generally _._("") is neither better nor worse than _("");


----- Original Message -----
From: "Incredible-Fish" <incrediblefish@yahoo.com>
To: "Serge" <serge@wildwestsoftware.com>; <mono-list@ximian.com>
Sent: Monday, November 19, 2001 7:41 PM
Subject: RE: [Mono-list] Resource System Proposal


> Another view of the whole thing....
>
> .NET is being promoted heavily by Microsoft to a world of people dying for
> "platform independence" on a level of experience Java was never able to
> deliver....
>
> .NET finally promises to bridge the gaps of all technology and languages
to
> give us an environment that is well structured and easy to manage....
>
> Microsoft and many big big name companies are dead-set to make this
suceed.
>
> In comes Mono .NET implementation that runs right along side Microsoft
.NET
> and it's free and for Linux. Linux comes up in class with the whole .NET
> scheme of things and gets real big appeal.
>
> But oops... being Open Source everybody has made giant revisions to Mono
> .NET so now we should completely rename it and not even call it .NET since
> none of the binaries or stuff works on the Microsoft or <blah blah>
> implementation. Jeez, we're back where we started. A seperate platform
that
> doesn't tie in with the (so far) winning platforms.
>
> All those paragraphs except the last is true. The last one might happen if
> this isn't done right. Like I said.... a Mono .NET project has to work on
a
> Microsoft .NET platform... and adhere to all the core standards so it can
> run on *any* future .NET implementation....
>
> This is very important if you want Mono to play along and everyone to play
> along with Mono ...
>
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: mono-list-admin@ximian.com [mailto:mono-list-admin@ximian.com]On
> > Behalf Of Serge
> > Sent: Monday, November 19, 2001 11:05 AM
> > To: mono-list@ximian.com
> > Subject: Re: [Mono-list] Resource System Proposal
> >
> >
> > There is one point.
> > Adding new *internal* method or delegate to Object class won't solve the
> > whole problem, as it's described in Rhys' proposal. It will only provide
> > consistency to corlib classes. But since standard library includes other
> > assemblies, this is only a partial solution.
> > Or am I missing something?
> >
> > BTW, in context of this discussion it's rather unfortunate that
> > CLI "global"
> > methods (methods of <Module> pseudo-class) are not supported by C#.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Mono-list maillist  -  Mono-list@ximian.com
> > http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-list
>
>