[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