http://books.google.de/books?id=oAcCRKd6EZgC&printsec=frontcover&dq=serge+lidin&hl=de&ei=4q0gTaaDEoGEhQfohbS5Dg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCoQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=generic&f=false
<http://books.google.de/books?id=oAcCRKd6EZgC&printsec=frontcover&dq=serge+lidin&hl=de&ei=4q0gTaaDEoGEhQfohbS5Dg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCoQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=generic&f=false>google books ftw. On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 5:53 PM, Johannes Rudolph < [email protected]> wrote: > AFAIK the generic aricity (that's what the backtick+number is called, the > number of generic parameters) is not part of any standards but rather a > convention employed by compilers to easily differntiate between generic and > non-generic types, though the runtime is perfectly capable of doing so > without the backticks in the name. > > I would need to dig up a reference, think it was mentioned in Serge Lidins > Assembler book. > > Regards, > Johannes > > > On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 5:18 PM, reichertj <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> >> On 2 Jan., 16:13, Jonathan Pryor <[email protected]> wrote: >> > Thus, this is By Design. >> >> ah, OK! I thought that Cecil does not replicate System.Reflection, but >> ECMA-335. >> But searching the ECMA pdf for '``' yielded no result... >> Is '``' indeed just a syntax element of IL and not defined in >> ECMA-335? >> >> Confused, >> Joachim >> >> -- >> -- >> mono-cecil > > > -- -- mono-cecil
