Hy Keith,
> I believe PEVerify should have flagged this as an error. Within > MyAssembly, class ClassA and class [MyAssembly]ClassA clearly refer to > the same thing, since if a type reference has no assembly reference, > it's inferred to refer to the same assembly. Therefore the two > signatures are the same, and overloading shouldn't be allowed. The > signatures of ClassA's methods may not seem to be identical > internally, but that's an artifact of how signatures are stored. They > are the same conceptually. PEVerify just prints : "Microsoft (R) .NET Framework PE Verifier. Version 3.5.21022.8 Copyright (c) Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. All Classes and Methods in MethodSignaturesAndOverriding.exe Verified." > ilasm has very limited error checking by design and can easily be made > to produce invalid code. I doubt that any high-level compiler will > produce such code. So, the example you gave is not a case you should > ever have to handle. > That's true... I'm doing this just for the sake of completion :) --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ -- mono-cecil -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
