[Mono-list] Missing Types from corlib

A Rafael D Teixeira rafaelteixeirabr@hotmail.com
Fri, 04 Jan 2002 09:20:35 -0200

>From: Miguel de Icaza <miguel@ximian.com>
>To: Nick Drochak <ndrochak@gol.com>
>Also, Nick and I discussed the use of some attributes to tag classes:
>MonoAuthor, MonoMaintainer and MonoTODO.  The only issue I have with
>MonoAuthor and MonoMaintainer is that in the end we might end up with a
>large amount of attributes that are not easy to "remove" from say an
>embedded build.

For TODO: VS.NET recognizes '// TODO:' comments and put them on the task 
list, if that is not enough and we want to find it on the compiled assembly, 
we can extend the doc tags:

///<TODO>Still needs to use a try block</TODO>

In the same vein: Why not extend the doc tags for author/mantainer?

The only problems I see is that the doc extractor has to be run in the 
'make' process and the extracted doc needs to be available to the missing 
types/diffing tool

The main advantage comes from the fact that attributes go into the assembly 
and may affect runtime performance (besides file size) and documentation is 
an added optional file that puts no runtime penalty.

I see attributes as mainly runtime modifiers: they donīt add code to your 
class, but instead to the class-loading process, and are used by some 
sophisticated framework classes to know how to deal with your class. Any 
unused attribute penalizes the iteration those classes perform on the 
attribute colections attached to your type, method, property, parameter...

Rafael Teixeira
Brazilian Developer

Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com