You would probably need to also distribute a compile script which detects
existence of dmcs/smcs/gmcs/mcs in order of decreasing preference, store it
in a local var then use it for compilation.
Regards
Roman
On 27 June 2010 19:37, Russell Wallace russell.wall...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm trying to
On Sun, 2010-06-27 at 21:29 +0100, Russell Wallace wrote:
On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 9:22 PM, Mark de Bruijn | Dykam
kram...@gmail.com wrote:
The problem is that not all version of C# are completely backwards
compatible themselves.
I was under the impression Microsoft were being very careful
2010/6/28 Russell Wallace russell.wall...@gmail.com:
On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 2:52 AM, Jonathan Pobst mon...@jpobst.com wrote:
Likely, when gmcs goes away, an alias script called 'gmcs' will be left
in it's place that points to the current compiler.
Yes, please do this -- that would be the
Sure, but it's not installed by default, even after installing the
mono-devel package:
a...@a-desktop:~$ mcs
The program 'mcs' is currently not installed. You can install it by typing:
sudo apt-get install mono-mcs
I'm guessing this is because mcs in its current form, being a copy of
an old
On 28.06.2010 11:13, Russell Wallace wrote:
Sure, but it's not installed by default, even after installing the
mono-devel package:
a...@a-desktop:~$ mcs
The program 'mcs' is currently not installed. You can install it by typing:
sudo apt-get install mono-mcs
I'm guessing this is because
On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 11:05 AM, Robert Jordan robe...@gmx.net wrote:
There are efforts to make mcs a multi-target compiler (probably
under a new name and with script wrappers for mcs, gmcs,
smcs, dmcs), but even then you'll have to specify the target
runtime version via a command like switch
There are efforts to make mcs a multi-target compiler (probably
under a new name and with script wrappers for mcs, gmcs,
smcs, dmcs), but even then you'll have to specify the target
runtime version via a command like switch (or resort to the
aforementioned wrappers).
This already exists via
Isn't it you deciding what platform your source targets? That is also the
decision of compiler. Once you get to use eg C#4 features, you want dmcs to
be the compiler.
--
Mark
On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 6:37 PM, Russell Wallace
russell.wall...@gmail.comwrote:
I'm trying to distribute a C# program
The issue is backward compatibility. At the moment, I would like to
use C#4 features but I can't because it's not generally available, so
I'll stick to C#3; fair enough. But then, having done that, my program
should continue to work even when later versions of Mono that support
4 (which is a
Once your code requires C#4, you change the makefile to C#4. Simple as that.
Detecting what version your code requires is hard, and I think you've
guidelines about what C# version you currently use for the project. When you
update that, you update the makefile.
--
Mark
On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at
Presumably someday I will start distributing new versions of my
program that require C#4, but that's a separate issue; the issue I'm
discussing here, I'm perhaps not explaining very well, I'll try again.
The problem I'm trying to solve is the standard problem of maintaining
backward compatibility
Am 27.06.2010 um 18:37 schrieb Russell Wallace:
Would it be possible to define a command to run whatever the
latest/currently installed C# compiler is? It seems to me that command
should be mcs, but it doesn't really matter what it is, as long as it
works reliably on all systems.
I would
Yes, cc is an excellent analogy. And csc would definitely make sense,
except it seems to be already used for something else?
a...@a-desktop:~$ csc
The program 'csc' is currently not installed. You can install it by typing:
sudo apt-get install chicken-bin
On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 6:13 PM,
The problem is that not all version of C# are completely backwards
compatible themselves. And for some reason I am still missing the point.
Mono going to 4.0 just means dmcs is available. Then when you move your
project to 4.0, you set the makefile to target dmcs. Where is the friction
going on?
On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 9:22 PM, Mark de Bruijn | Dykam
kram...@gmail.com wrote:
The problem is that not all version of C# are completely backwards
compatible themselves.
I was under the impression Microsoft were being very careful about
maintaining backward compatibility in both the language
AFAIK the backwards compatibility breaks are really fixes of wrong behavior
of previous version. And compilers being discontinued, this goes in an
extreme slow pace, I'm pretty sure you will never have an issue with this.
--
Mark
On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 10:29 PM, Russell Wallace
On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 9:32 PM, Mark de Bruijn | Dykam
kram...@gmail.com wrote:
AFAIK the backwards compatibility breaks are really fixes of wrong behavior
of previous version.
Yeah, that was my understanding; and it's rare, confined to edge cases
generally, and fair/inevitable/not a
On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 4:29 PM, Russell Wallace
russell.wall...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 9:22 PM, Mark de Bruijn | Dykam
kram...@gmail.com wrote:
The problem is that not all version of C# are completely backwards
compatible themselves.
I was under the impression Microsoft
I think this is a fair question. I am not sure the original poster deserved
so much grief.
I have certainly compiled C programs from source that were written more than
five or six years ago. It does not seem implausible that I might try to
compile the original posters code a decade from now
On 6/27/2010 8:20 PM, jmalcolm wrote:
I think this is a fair question. I am not sure the original poster deserved
so much grief.
I have certainly compiled C programs from source that were written more than
five or six years ago. It does not seem implausible that I might try to
compile the
On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 2:52 AM, Jonathan Pobst mon...@jpobst.com wrote:
Likely, when gmcs goes away, an alias script called 'gmcs' will be left
in it's place that points to the current compiler.
Yes, please do this -- that would be the preferred solution.
It would be nice if the same could
On 6/27/2010 9:25 PM, Russell Wallace wrote:
On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 2:52 AM, Jonathan Pobstmon...@jpobst.com wrote:
Likely, when gmcs goes away, an alias script called 'gmcs' will be left
in it's place that points to the current compiler.
Yes, please do this -- that would be the preferred
Perfect, thank you!
On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 3:36 AM, Jonathan Pobst mon...@jpobst.com wrote:
On 6/27/2010 9:25 PM, Russell Wallace wrote:
On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 2:52 AM, Jonathan Pobstmon...@jpobst.com wrote:
Likely, when gmcs goes away, an alias script called 'gmcs' will be left
in it's
23 matches
Mail list logo
