[Mono-list] C# changes

[Zaphod]

On Mon, Nov 11, 2002 at 10:03:50AM -0500, Jonathan Pryor wrote:
> would be identical to the "normal" class definition:

In IL  ? .... Would it form the same syntax for IL ? ... (that would
be just a new way for organizing type gathering code , right ?) ...
Is that such a revolutionary change ? ... IMHO NO.

> The one thing I dislike about this approach is that they added a new
> keyword.  Why didn't they use an Attribute?  Attributes are already used
> for both custom attributes (e.g. System.Diagnostics.DebuggableAttribute)
> and CIL attributes (e.g. Serializable, MethodImplOptions, ...).  Why not
> have a compiler-intrinsic [Partial] attribute?  Still reasonably
> consistent, and doesn't need a new keyword.

Because Attributes are analyzed only *after* the type gathering occurs ...
Also attributes would make some .NET implementation complicated ... 
For example IndexerName is an ugly context sensitive hack for names ....
Thank God the new designers are not Attribute Crazy ...

AFAIK, the new keyword approach is much cleaner for compiler implementation.