It's not a CLR bug. The CLR properly handles overloaded method calls where only the return value of the signature differs (i.e. covariant return methods) . The runtime and the Partition I and II metadata specs are very clear that members must form a unique tuple: table/name/signature (where table has a restricted set of values).
So the CLR is working perfectly but the Remoting layer relies on Reflection-like behavior and it's the reflecting code that doesn't quite obey the spec. I found a similar bug wrt fields and Remoting just last week, which MS said was a remoting bug. -- Brent Rector, .NET Wise Owl Demeanor for .NET - an obfuscation utility http://www.wiseowl.com/Products/Products.aspx -----Original Message----- From: Henk de Koning [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Saturday, May 18, 2002 2:11 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [DOTNET] BUG: Remoting does not distinguish methods differing only by return type The question is if this is a documentation bug or a CLR bug ... -- Henkk ----- Original Message ----- From: "Brent E. Rector" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, May 18, 2002 9:25 PM Subject: [DOTNET] BUG: Remoting does not distinguish methods differing only by return type > Remoting throws an ambiguous match exception when calling a method on > a remote MBR object that differs from another method of the type only > by the return type. Here's an example using pseudo-C# syntax: > > internal class AppDomainInfoFetcher : System.MarshalByRefObject { > internal AppDomainInfo a (AssemblyName name) { . . . } > internal AssemblyName[] a (AssemblyName name) { . . . } > } > } > > Partition I 7.5.2 Assemblies and Scoping > Generally, names are not unique. Names are collected into groupings > called scopes. Within a scope, a name may refer to multiple entities > as long as they are of different kinds (methods, fields, nested types, > properties, and events) or have different signatures. > > [Brent] The two methods called 'a' above have differing signatures. > Only CLS Rule 6 requires the return type part of a signature to be > ignored. But Remoting should work for non-CLS compliant types too. > > CLS Rule 6: Fields and nested types shall be distinct by identifier > comparison alone, even though the CTS allows distinct signatures to be > distinguished. Methods, properties, and events that have the same > name (by identifier comparison) shall differ by more than just the > return type, except as specified in CLS Rule 39. > > > -- Brent Rector, .NET Wise Owl > Demeanor for .NET - an obfuscation utility > http://www.wiseowl.com/Products/Products.aspx > > You can read messages from the DOTNET archive, unsubscribe from > DOTNET, or subscribe to other DevelopMentor lists at > http://discuss.develop.com. > You can read messages from the DOTNET archive, unsubscribe from DOTNET, or subscribe to other DevelopMentor lists at http://discuss.develop.com. You can read messages from the DOTNET archive, unsubscribe from DOTNET, or subscribe to other DevelopMentor lists at http://discuss.develop.com.
