Mon, 06 Jan 2003 22:59:06 +0100
Miguel de Icaza wrote:
>The *CodeProvider classes are just factories to create an object that
>can generate source code from your program. They are just a nice
>wrapper that lets you in a language independent fashion "write code".
>This is used mostly by ASP.NET, and never ever talks to mcs or mbas
>directly. Those interfaces will generate a temporary file on disk, and
>the invoke the compiler to compile the temporary file.
Do mcs and mbas use the CodeProvider classes in the same way as ASP.NET
(or could that be used the same way?)
I mean, is that the way to work with the CodeProvider classes?
Uh.. I'm lost, what 2 different problems do you mean?
Or let me rephrase the question:
If we have CodeProvider classes, can we use these for the compiler? (in
other words, the compiler would just be a 'commandline wrapper' around
the CodeProvider class).
>>Hmm.. will jsc conflict with the already present jsc (on Windows)
>>I thought the 'leading' m was common practice for the 'mono' compilers :)
>The story is a bit more complex than that. When I started writing mcs,
>this was long before it became serious, it stood for "miguel's
>c-sharp". This is obviously far from a serious name, so officially we
>call it the `mono c# compiler'.
Glad your name starts with an M :)
>I do not particularly care about the name of the compiler (for both jsc
>and csc). There are pros and cons in both cases. Pros for using the
>same names and same arguments as the Microsoft counterparts: existing
>scripts and makefiles are easier to "port". The con is that in Windows
>you dont know what compiler you are invoking ;-)
Yes, but I think it would be good if all compilers follow the same
'guideline' (I don't mind which one),
so I think the best for now if to name it mjsc?