If you only want to operate with components written in 'your' language, then by all
means, go beyond CLS. But if you want to be able to be able to be consumed by other
languages, then you need to keep to CLS. Perhaps working through ECMA would be a way
to extend CLS, to see if enough folks felt it needed to cover more...
/Brad
-----Original Message-----
From: Fergus Henderson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thu 8/15/2002 2:33 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc:
Subject: Re: [DOTNET-ROTOR] C# compiler cannot handle interfaces with static
methods
On 14-Aug-2002, Brad Merrill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Also, if you start implementing things outside of CLS, think about the
> impact on other languages. Eg, what will happen if you class is
> instanciated by Eiffel? or Fortran? :)
That is not a good argument for not implementing things outside of the CLS.
If people want their code to be interoperable with other languages,
then they will build their software with CLS compliance checking enabled.
Rotor *does* have CLS compliance checking, doesn't it? ;-)
I think the ECMA standard required it, last time I looked...
--
Fergus Henderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | "I have always known that the pursuit
The University of Melbourne | of excellence is a lethal habit"
WWW: <http://www.cs.mu.oz.au/~fjh> | -- the last words of T. S. Garp.
